linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 6/6] selftests/bpf: Add a series of tests for bpf

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: <CABRcYm+v7xC8WsxYu6BoiEX1vhQSVSX5U-LyUnevGt1tFud5tA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 14 Apr 2021 11:21:22 +0200
From:   Florent Revest <revest@...omium.org>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc:     bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
        Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...omium.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 6/6] selftests/bpf: Add a series of tests for bpf_snprintf

On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 1:21 AM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 8:38 AM Florent Revest <revest@...omium.org> wrote:
> >
> > This exercises most of the format specifiers.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Florent Revest <revest@...omium.org>
> > Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
> > ---
>
> As I mentioned on another patch, we probably need negative tests even
> more than positive ones.

Agreed.

> I think an easy and nice way to do this is to have a separate BPF
> skeleton where fmt string and arguments are provided through read-only
> global variables, so that user-space can re-use the same BPF skeleton
> to simulate multiple cases. BPF program itself would just call
> bpf_snprintf() and store the returned result.

Ah, great idea! I was thinking of having one skeleton for each but it
would be a bit much indeed.

Because the format string needs to be in a read only map though, I
hope it can be modified from userspace before loading. I'll try it out
and see :) if it doesn't work I'll just use more skeletons

> Whether we need to validate the verifier log is up to debate (though
> it's not that hard to do by overriding libbpf_print_fn() callback),
> I'd be ok at least knowing that some bad format strings are rejected
> and don't crash the kernel.

Alright :)

>
> >  .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/snprintf.c       | 81 +++++++++++++++++++
> >  .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_snprintf.c       | 74 +++++++++++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 155 insertions(+)
> >  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/snprintf.c
> >  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_snprintf.c
> >
>
> [...]