linux-kernel - [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.9 12/15] selftests/bpf: Fix "dubious pointer arithmetic" test

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

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20201220033434.2728348-12-sashal@kernel.org>
Date:   Sat, 19 Dec 2020 22:34:30 -0500
From:   Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.9 12/15] selftests/bpf: Fix "dubious pointer arithmetic" test

From: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>

[ Upstream commit 3615bdf6d9b19db12b1589861609b4f1c6a8d303 ]

The verifier trace changed following a bugfix. After checking the 64-bit
sign, only the upper bit mask is known, not bit 31. Update the test
accordingly.

Signed-off-by: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>
Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/align.c | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/align.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/align.c
index c548aded65859..2a15aa3d49c74 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/align.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/align.c
@@ -456,10 +456,10 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
 			 */
 			{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=9223372034707292158,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fffffff7ffffffc)"},
+			{9, "R5=inv(id=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372036854775806,var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffffffffffc)"},
 			/* packet pointer + nonnegative (4n+2) */
-			{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)"},
+			{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)"},
 			/* 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
@@ -467,7 +467,7 @@ 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=9223372034707292158,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fffffff7ffffffc)"},
+			{15, "R6_w=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372036854775806,var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffffffffffc)"},
 		}
 	},
 	{
-- 
2.27.0