[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20201007012313.2778426-1-haoluo@google.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2020 18:23:13 -0700
From: Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>
To: netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2] selftests/bpf: Fix test_verifier after introducing resolve_pseudo_ldimm64
Commit 4976b718c355 ("bpf: Introduce pseudo_btf_id") switched
the order of check_subprogs() and resolve_pseudo_ldimm() in
the verifier. Now an empty prog expects to see the error "last
insn is not an the prog of a single invalid ldimm exit or jmp"
instead, because the check for subprogs comes first. It's now
pointless to validate that half of ldimm64 won't be the last
instruction.
Tested:
# ./test_verifier
Summary: 1129 PASSED, 537 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
and the full set of bpf selftests.
Fixes: 4976b718c355 ("bpf: Introduce pseudo_btf_id")
Signed-off-by: Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>
---
Changelog in v2:
- Remove the original test_verifier ld_imm64 test4
- Updated commit message.
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/basic.c | 2 +-
.../testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/ld_imm64.c | 24 +++++++------------
2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/basic.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/basic.c
index b8d18642653a..de84f0d57082 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/basic.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/basic.c
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"empty prog",
.insns = {
},
- .errstr = "unknown opcode 00",
+ .errstr = "last insn is not an exit or jmp",
.result = REJECT,
},
{
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/ld_imm64.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/ld_imm64.c
index 3856dba733e9..ed6a34991216 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/ld_imm64.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/ld_imm64.c
@@ -54,21 +54,13 @@
"test5 ld_imm64",
.insns = {
BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_LD | BPF_IMM | BPF_DW, 0, 0, 0, 0),
- },
- .errstr = "invalid bpf_ld_imm64 insn",
- .result = REJECT,
-},
-{
- "test6 ld_imm64",
- .insns = {
- BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_LD | BPF_IMM | BPF_DW, 0, 0, 0, 0),
BPF_RAW_INSN(0, 0, 0, 0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.result = ACCEPT,
},
{
- "test7 ld_imm64",
+ "test6 ld_imm64",
.insns = {
BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_LD | BPF_IMM | BPF_DW, 0, 0, 0, 1),
BPF_RAW_INSN(0, 0, 0, 0, 1),
@@ -78,7 +70,7 @@
.retval = 1,
},
{
- "test8 ld_imm64",
+ "test7 ld_imm64",
.insns = {
BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_LD | BPF_IMM | BPF_DW, 0, 0, 1, 1),
BPF_RAW_INSN(0, 0, 0, 0, 1),
@@ -88,7 +80,7 @@
.result = REJECT,
},
{
- "test9 ld_imm64",
+ "test8 ld_imm64",
.insns = {
BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_LD | BPF_IMM | BPF_DW, 0, 0, 0, 1),
BPF_RAW_INSN(0, 0, 0, 1, 1),
@@ -98,7 +90,7 @@
.result = REJECT,
},
{
- "test10 ld_imm64",
+ "test9 ld_imm64",
.insns = {
BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_LD | BPF_IMM | BPF_DW, 0, 0, 0, 1),
BPF_RAW_INSN(0, BPF_REG_1, 0, 0, 1),
@@ -108,7 +100,7 @@
.result = REJECT,
},
{
- "test11 ld_imm64",
+ "test10 ld_imm64",
.insns = {
BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_LD | BPF_IMM | BPF_DW, 0, 0, 0, 1),
BPF_RAW_INSN(0, 0, BPF_REG_1, 0, 1),
@@ -118,7 +110,7 @@
.result = REJECT,
},
{
- "test12 ld_imm64",
+ "test11 ld_imm64",
.insns = {
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 0),
BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_LD | BPF_IMM | BPF_DW, 0, BPF_REG_1, 0, 1),
@@ -129,7 +121,7 @@
.result = REJECT,
},
{
- "test13 ld_imm64",
+ "test12 ld_imm64",
.insns = {
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 0),
BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_LD | BPF_IMM | BPF_DW, 0, BPF_REG_1, 0, 1),
@@ -140,7 +132,7 @@
.result = REJECT,
},
{
- "test14 ld_imm64: reject 2nd imm != 0",
+ "test13 ld_imm64: reject 2nd imm != 0",
.insns = {
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_LD | BPF_IMM | BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1,
--
2.28.0.806.g8561365e88-goog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists