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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 18:24:10 +0200 From: Gilad Reti <gilad.reti@...il.com> To: KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org> Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, 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 Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 6:17 PM KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 4:43 PM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote: > > > > 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? > > Yeah, I guess there is no sure-shot way to do it and, adding inline asm would > just be doing the same thing as this verifier test. You can ignore me > on this one :) > > It would, however, be nice to have a better description about what the test is > actually doing./ > > I will re-submit the patch tomorrow. Thank you all for your patience. > > > > > 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