| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20200619141719.528926207@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2020 16:31:52 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 5.7 194/376] selftests/bpf: Fix test_align verifier log patterns
From: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
[ Upstream commit 5366d2269139ba8eb6a906d73a0819947e3e4e0a ]
Commit 294f2fc6da27 ("bpf: Verifer, adjust_scalar_min_max_vals to always
call update_reg_bounds()") changed the way verifier logs some of its state,
adjust the test_align accordingly. Where possible, I tried to not copy-paste
the entire log line and resorted to dropping the last closing brace instead.
Fixes: 294f2fc6da27 ("bpf: Verifer, adjust_scalar_min_max_vals to always call update_reg_bounds()")
Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200515194904.229296-1-sdf@google.com
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c | 41 ++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c
index 0262f7b374f9..c9c9bdce9d6d 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c
@@ -359,15 +359,15 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
* is still (4n), fixed offset is not changed.
* Also, we create a new reg->id.
*/
- {29, "R5_w=pkt(id=4,off=18,r=0,umax_value=2040,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc))"},
+ {29, "R5_w=pkt(id=4,off=18,r=0,umax_value=2040,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc)"},
/* At the time the word size load is performed from R5,
* its total fixed offset is NET_IP_ALIGN + reg->off (18)
* which is 20. Then the variable offset is (4n), so
* the total offset is 4-byte aligned and meets the
* load's requirements.
*/
- {33, "R4=pkt(id=4,off=22,r=22,umax_value=2040,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc))"},
- {33, "R5=pkt(id=4,off=18,r=22,umax_value=2040,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc))"},
+ {33, "R4=pkt(id=4,off=22,r=22,umax_value=2040,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc)"},
+ {33, "R5=pkt(id=4,off=18,r=22,umax_value=2040,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc)"},
},
},
{
@@ -410,15 +410,15 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
/* Adding 14 makes R6 be (4n+2) */
{9, "R6_w=inv(id=0,umin_value=14,umax_value=1034,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc))"},
/* Packet pointer has (4n+2) offset */
- {11, "R5_w=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=0,umin_value=14,umax_value=1034,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc))"},
- {13, "R4=pkt(id=1,off=4,r=0,umin_value=14,umax_value=1034,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc))"},
+ {11, "R5_w=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=0,umin_value=14,umax_value=1034,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc)"},
+ {13, "R4=pkt(id=1,off=4,r=0,umin_value=14,umax_value=1034,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc)"},
/* At the time the word size load is performed from R5,
* its total fixed offset is NET_IP_ALIGN + reg->off (0)
* which is 2. Then the variable offset is (4n+2), so
* the total offset is 4-byte aligned and meets the
* load's requirements.
*/
- {15, "R5=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=4,umin_value=14,umax_value=1034,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc))"},
+ {15, "R5=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=4,umin_value=14,umax_value=1034,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc)"},
/* Newly read value in R6 was shifted left by 2, so has
* known alignment of 4.
*/
@@ -426,15 +426,15 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
/* Added (4n) to packet pointer's (4n+2) var_off, giving
* another (4n+2).
*/
- {19, "R5_w=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=0,umin_value=14,umax_value=2054,var_off=(0x2; 0xffc))"},
- {21, "R4=pkt(id=2,off=4,r=0,umin_value=14,umax_value=2054,var_off=(0x2; 0xffc))"},
+ {19, "R5_w=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=0,umin_value=14,umax_value=2054,var_off=(0x2; 0xffc)"},
+ {21, "R4=pkt(id=2,off=4,r=0,umin_value=14,umax_value=2054,var_off=(0x2; 0xffc)"},
/* At the time the word size load is performed from R5,
* its total fixed offset is NET_IP_ALIGN + reg->off (0)
* which is 2. Then the variable offset is (4n+2), so
* the total offset is 4-byte aligned and meets the
* load's requirements.
*/
- {23, "R5=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=4,umin_value=14,umax_value=2054,var_off=(0x2; 0xffc))"},
+ {23, "R5=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=4,umin_value=14,umax_value=2054,var_off=(0x2; 0xffc)"},
},
},
{
@@ -469,16 +469,16 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
.matches = {
{4, "R5_w=pkt_end(id=0,off=0,imm=0)"},
/* (ptr - ptr) << 2 == unknown, (4n) */
- {6, "R5_w=inv(id=0,smax_value=9223372036854775804,umax_value=18446744073709551612,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffffffffffc))"},
+ {6, "R5_w=inv(id=0,smax_value=9223372036854775804,umax_value=18446744073709551612,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffffffffffc)"},
/* (4n) + 14 == (4n+2). We blow our bounds, because
* the add could overflow.
*/
- {7, "R5_w=inv(id=0,var_off=(0x2; 0xfffffffffffffffc))"},
+ {7, "R5_w=inv(id=0,smin_value=-9223372036854775806,smax_value=9223372036854775806,umin_value=2,umax_value=18446744073709551614,var_off=(0x2; 0xfffffffffffffffc)"},
/* Checked s>=0 */
- {9, "R5=inv(id=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372036854775806,var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffffffffffc))"},
+ {9, "R5=inv(id=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372034707292158,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fffffff7ffffffc)"},
/* packet pointer + nonnegative (4n+2) */
- {11, "R6_w=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372036854775806,var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffffffffffc))"},
- {13, "R4_w=pkt(id=1,off=4,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372036854775806,var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffffffffffc))"},
+ {11, "R6_w=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372034707292158,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fffffff7ffffffc)"},
+ {13, "R4_w=pkt(id=1,off=4,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372034707292158,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fffffff7ffffffc)"},
/* NET_IP_ALIGN + (4n+2) == (4n), alignment is fine.
* We checked the bounds, but it might have been able
* to overflow if the packet pointer started in the
@@ -486,7 +486,7 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
* So we did not get a 'range' on R6, and the access
* attempt will fail.
*/
- {15, "R6_w=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372036854775806,var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffffffffffc))"},
+ {15, "R6_w=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372034707292158,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fffffff7ffffffc)"},
}
},
{
@@ -528,7 +528,7 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
/* New unknown value in R7 is (4n) */
{11, "R7_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"},
/* Subtracting it from R6 blows our unsigned bounds */
- {12, "R6=inv(id=0,smin_value=-1006,smax_value=1034,var_off=(0x2; 0xfffffffffffffffc))"},
+ {12, "R6=inv(id=0,smin_value=-1006,smax_value=1034,umin_value=2,umax_value=18446744073709551614,var_off=(0x2; 0xfffffffffffffffc)"},
/* Checked s>= 0 */
{14, "R6=inv(id=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=1034,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc))"},
/* At the time the word size load is performed from R5,
@@ -537,7 +537,8 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
* the total offset is 4-byte aligned and meets the
* load's requirements.
*/
- {20, "R5=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=4,umin_value=2,umax_value=1034,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc))"},
+ {20, "R5=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=4,umin_value=2,umax_value=1034,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc)"},
+
},
},
{
@@ -579,18 +580,18 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
/* Adding 14 makes R6 be (4n+2) */
{11, "R6_w=inv(id=0,umin_value=14,umax_value=74,var_off=(0x2; 0x7c))"},
/* Subtracting from packet pointer overflows ubounds */
- {13, "R5_w=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=8,umin_value=18446744073709551542,umax_value=18446744073709551602,var_off=(0xffffffffffffff82; 0x7c))"},
+ {13, "R5_w=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=8,umin_value=18446744073709551542,umax_value=18446744073709551602,var_off=(0xffffffffffffff82; 0x7c)"},
/* New unknown value in R7 is (4n), >= 76 */
{15, "R7_w=inv(id=0,umin_value=76,umax_value=1096,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc))"},
/* Adding it to packet pointer gives nice bounds again */
- {16, "R5_w=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=1082,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc))"},
+ {16, "R5_w=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=1082,var_off=(0x2; 0xfffffffc)"},
/* At the time the word size load is performed from R5,
* its total fixed offset is NET_IP_ALIGN + reg->off (0)
* which is 2. Then the variable offset is (4n+2), so
* the total offset is 4-byte aligned and meets the
* load's requirements.
*/
- {20, "R5=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=4,umin_value=2,umax_value=1082,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc))"},
+ {20, "R5=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=4,umin_value=2,umax_value=1082,var_off=(0x2; 0xfffffffc)"},
},
},
};
--
2.25.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists