linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 3/3] selftests/bpf: Skip callback tests if jit is disabled in 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]

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2024 09:32:57 +0800
From: Hou Tao <houtao@...weicloud.com>
To: Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
Cc: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@...ngson.cn>, Alexei Starovoitov
 <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
 Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>,
 John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
 bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 3/3] selftests/bpf: Skip callback tests if jit
 is disabled in test_verifier

Hi,

On 1/18/2024 9:27 AM, Song Liu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 5:11 PM Hou Tao <houtao@...weicloud.com> wrote:
>> Hi Song,
>>
>> On 1/18/2024 1:20 AM, Song Liu wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 3:10 AM Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@...ngson.cn> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> @@ -1622,6 +1624,16 @@ static void do_test_single(struct bpf_test *test, bool unpriv,
>>>>         alignment_prevented_execution = 0;
>>>>
>>>>         if (expected_ret == ACCEPT || expected_ret == VERBOSE_ACCEPT) {
>>>> +               if (fd_prog < 0 && saved_errno == EINVAL && jit_disabled) {
>>>> +                       for (i = 0; i < prog_len; i++, prog++) {
>>>> +                               if (!insn_is_pseudo_func(prog))
>>>> +                                       continue;
>>>> +                               printf("SKIP (callbacks are not allowed in non-JITed programs)\n");
>>>> +                               skips++;
>>>> +                               goto close_fds;
>>>> +                       }
>>>> +               }
>>>> +
>>> I would put this chunk above "alignment_prevented_execution = 0;".
>>>
>>> @@ -1619,6 +1621,16 @@ static void do_test_single(struct bpf_test
>>> *test, bool unpriv,
>>>                 goto close_fds;
>>>         }
>>>
>>> +       if (fd_prog < 0 && saved_errno == EINVAL && jit_disabled) {
>>> +               for (i = 0; i < prog_len; i++, prog++) {
>>> +                       if (!insn_is_pseudo_func(prog))
>>> +                               continue;
>>> +                       printf("SKIP (callbacks are not allowed in
>>> non-JITed programs)\n");
>>> +                       skips++;
>>> +                       goto close_fds;
>>> +               }
>>> +       }
>>> +
>>>         alignment_prevented_execution = 0;
>>>
>>>         if (expected_ret == ACCEPT || expected_ret == VERBOSE_ACCEPT) {
>>>
>>> Other than this,
>> The check was placed before the checking of expected_ret in v3. However
>> I suggested Tiezhu to move it after the checking of expected_ret due to
> I missed this part while reading the history of the set.
>
>> the following two reasons:
>> 1) when the expected result is REJECT, the return value in about one
>> third of these test cases is -EINVAL. And I think we should not waste
>> the cpu to check the pseudo func and exit prematurely, instead we should
>> let test_verifier check expected_err.
> I was thinking jit_disabled is not a common use case so that it is OK for
> this path to be a little expensive.
>
>> 2) As for now all expected_ret of these failed cases are ACCEPT when jit
>> is disabled, so I think it will be enough for current situation and we
>> can revise it later if the checking of pseudo func is too later.
> That said, I won't object if we ship this version as-is.

I see and thanks for the explanation.
> Thanks,
> Song