linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.14 38/47] selftests/bpf: fix 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: <20210608175931.727183559@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Tue,  8 Jun 2021 20:27:21 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@...el.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Subject: [PATCH 4.14 38/47] selftests/bpf: fix test_align

From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>

commit 2b36047e7889b7efee22c11e17f035f721855731 upstream.

since commit 82abbf8d2fc4 the verifier rejects the bit-wise
arithmetic on pointers earlier.
The test 'dubious pointer arithmetic' now has less output to match on.
Adjust it.

Fixes: 82abbf8d2fc4 ("bpf: do not allow root to mangle valid pointers")
Reported-by: kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c |   22 +---------------------
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 21 deletions(-)

--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c
@@ -474,27 +474,7 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
 		.result = REJECT,
 		.matches = {
 			{4, "R5=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=0,imm=0)"},
-			/* ptr & 0x40 == either 0 or 0x40 */
-			{5, "R5=inv(id=0,umax_value=64,var_off=(0x0; 0x40))"},
-			/* ptr << 2 == unknown, (4n) */
-			{7, "R5=inv(id=0,smax_value=9223372036854775804,umax_value=18446744073709551612,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffffffffffc))"},
-			/* (4n) + 14 == (4n+2).  We blow our bounds, because
-			 * the add could overflow.
-			 */
-			{8, "R5=inv(id=0,var_off=(0x2; 0xfffffffffffffffc))"},
-			/* Checked s>=0 */
-			{10, "R5=inv(id=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372036854775806,var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffffffffffc))"},
-			/* packet pointer + nonnegative (4n+2) */
-			{12, "R6=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372036854775806,var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffffffffffc))"},
-			{14, "R4=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
-			 * upper half of the address space.
-			 * So we did not get a 'range' on R6, and the access
-			 * attempt will fail.
-			 */
-			{16, "R6=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372036854775806,var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffffffffffc))"},
+			/* R5 bitwise operator &= on pointer prohibited */
 		}
 	},
 	{