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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 12 Jan 2021 16:43:19 +0100
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Gilad Reti <gilad.reti@...il.com>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>
Cc:     bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] selftests/bpf: add verifier test for PTR_TO_MEM spill

On 1/12/21 4:35 PM, Gilad Reti wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 4:56 PM KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 10:16 AM Gilad Reti <gilad.reti@...il.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Add test to check that the verifier is able to recognize spilling of
>>> PTR_TO_MEM registers.
>>
>> It would be nice to have some explanation of what the test does to
>> recognize the spilling of the PTR_TO_MEM registers in the commit
>> log as well.
>>
>> Would it be possible to augment an existing test_progs
>> program like tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_ringbuf.c to test
>> this functionality?

How would you guarantee that LLVM generates the spill/fill, via inline asm?

> It may be possible, but from what I understood from Daniel's comment here
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/17629073-4fab-a922-ecc3-25b019960f44@iogearbox.net/
> 
> the test should be a part of the verifier tests (which is reasonable
> to me since it is
> a verifier bugfix)

Yeah, the test_verifier case as you have is definitely the most straight
forward way to add coverage in this case.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists