linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.19 026/287] 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-Id: <20220823080101.156298170@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Tue, 23 Aug 2022 10:23:15 +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>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Ovidiu Panait <ovidiu.panait@...driver.com>
Subject: [PATCH 4.19 026/287] selftests/bpf: Fix "dubious pointer arithmetic" test

From: Ovidiu Panait <ovidiu.panait@...driver.com>

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

commit 3615bdf6d9b19db12b1589861609b4f1c6a8d303 upstream.

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>
[OP: adjust for 4.19 selftests]
Signed-off-by: Ovidiu Panait <ovidiu.panait@...driver.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c |    8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c
@@ -475,10 +475,10 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
 			 */
 			{7, "R5=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=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=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
@@ -486,7 +486,7 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
 			 * So we did not get a 'range' on R6, and the access
 			 * attempt will fail.
 			 */
-			{15, "R6=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372034707292158,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fffffff7ffffffc)"},
+			{15, "R6=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372036854775806,var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffffffffffc)"},
 		}
 	},
 	{