| 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, 7 May 2024 12:15:17 -0700
From: "Abhishek Chauhan (ABC)" <quic_abchauha@...cinc.com>
To: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>
CC: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller"
<davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski
<kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@...hat.com>,
"Martin
KaFai Lau" <martin.lau@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
<kernel@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next v6 3/3] selftests/bpf: Handle forwarding of
UDP CLOCK_TAI packets
On 5/6/2024 5:54 PM, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> On 5/6/24 1:50 PM, Abhishek Chauhan (ABC) wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 5/6/2024 12:04 PM, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
>>> Abhishek Chauhan wrote:
>>>> With changes in the design to forward CLOCK_TAI in the skbuff
>>>> framework, existing selftest framework needs modification
>>>> to handle forwarding of UDP packets with CLOCK_TAI as clockid.
>>>>
>>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/bc037db4-58bb-4861-ac31-a361a93841d3@linux.dev/
>>>> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Chauhan <quic_abchauha@...cinc.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 15 ++++---
>>>> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ctx_rewrite.c | 10 +++--
>>>> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tc_redirect.c | 3 --
>>>> .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_tc_dtime.c | 39 +++++++++----------
>>>> 4 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
>>>> index 90706a47f6ff..25ea393cf084 100644
>>>> --- a/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
>>>> +++ b/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
>>>> @@ -6207,12 +6207,17 @@ union { \
>>>> __u64 :64; \
>>>> } __attribute__((aligned(8)))
>>>> +/* The enum used in skb->tstamp_type. It specifies the clock type
>>>> + * of the time stored in the skb->tstamp.
>>>> + */
>>>> enum {
>>>> - BPF_SKB_TSTAMP_UNSPEC,
>>>> - BPF_SKB_TSTAMP_DELIVERY_MONO, /* tstamp has mono delivery time */
>>>> - /* For any BPF_SKB_TSTAMP_* that the bpf prog cannot handle,
>>>> - * the bpf prog should handle it like BPF_SKB_TSTAMP_UNSPEC
>>>> - * and try to deduce it by ingress, egress or skb->sk->sk_clockid.
>>>> + BPF_SKB_TSTAMP_UNSPEC = 0, /* DEPRECATED */
>>>> + BPF_SKB_TSTAMP_DELIVERY_MONO = 1, /* DEPRECATED */
>>>> + BPF_SKB_CLOCK_REALTIME = 0,
>>>> + BPF_SKB_CLOCK_MONOTONIC = 1,
>>>> + BPF_SKB_CLOCK_TAI = 2,
>>>> + /* For any future BPF_SKB_CLOCK_* that the bpf prog cannot handle,
>>>> + * the bpf prog can try to deduce it by ingress/egress/skb->sk->sk_clockid.
>>>> */
>>>> };
>>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ctx_rewrite.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ctx_rewrite.c
>>>> index 3b7c57fe55a5..71940f4ef0fb 100644
>>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ctx_rewrite.c
>>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ctx_rewrite.c
>>>> @@ -69,15 +69,17 @@ static struct test_case test_cases[] = {
>>>> {
>>>> N(SCHED_CLS, struct __sk_buff, tstamp),
>>>> .read = "r11 = *(u8 *)($ctx + sk_buff::__mono_tc_offset);"
>>>> - "w11 &= 3;"
>>>> - "if w11 != 0x3 goto pc+2;"
>>>> + "if w11 == 0x4 goto pc+1;"
>>>> + "goto pc+4;"
>>>> + "if w11 == 0x3 goto pc+1;"
>>>> + "goto pc+2;"
>>>
>>> Not an expert on this code, and I see that the existing code already
>>> has this below, but: isn't it odd and unnecessary to jump to an
>>> unconditional jump statement?
>>>
>> I am closely looking into your comment and i will evalute it(Martin can correct me
>> if the jumps are correct or not as i am new to BPF as well) but i found out that
>> JSET = "&" and not "==". So the above two ins has to change from -
>
> Yes, this should be bitwise "&" instead of "==".
>
> The bpf CI did report this: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/8947652196/job/24579927178
>
> Please monitor the bpf CI test result.
>
> Do you have issue running the test locally?
>
Yes, To be honest. I am facing compilation issues when i follow the documentation to Make BPF on latest kernel.
This is slowing down my development with this patch.
Very similar to the problem described here :- https://github.com/jsitnicki/ebpf-summit-2020/issues/1
local/mnt/workspace/kernel_master/linux-next/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/tools/build/bpftool/bootstrap/libbpf/include/bpf/bpf_core_read.h:379:26: note: expanded from macro '___arrow2'
#define ___arrow2(a, b) a->b
~^
skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c:19:9: note: forward declaration of 'struct bpf_link'
struct bpf_link link;
^
skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c:105:7: error: incomplete definition of type 'struct bpf_link'
if (BPF_CORE_READ(link, type) == bpf_core_enum_value(enum bpf_link_type___local,
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> "if w11 == 0x4 goto pc+1;" ==>(needs to be corrected to) "if w11 & 0x4 goto pc+1;"
>> "if w11 == 0x3 goto pc+1;" ==> (needs to be correct to) "if w11 & 0x3 goto pc+1;"
>>
>>
>>>> "$dst = 0;"
>>>> "goto pc+1;"
>>>> "$dst = *(u64 *)($ctx + sk_buff::tstamp);",
>>>> .write = "r11 = *(u8 *)($ctx + sk_buff::__mono_tc_offset);"
>>>> - "if w11 & 0x2 goto pc+1;"
>>>> + "if w11 & 0x4 goto pc+1;"
>>>> "goto pc+2;"
>>>> - "w11 &= -2;"
>>>> + "w11 &= -3;"
>> Martin,
>> Also i am not sure why the the dissembly complains because the value of SKB_TSTAMP_TYPE_MASK = 3 and we are
>> negating it ~3 = -3.
>>
>> Can't match disassembly(left) with pattern(right):
>> r11 = *(u8 *)(r1 +129) ; r11 = *(u8 *)($ctx + sk_buff::__mono_tc_offset)
>> if w11 & 0x4 goto pc+1 ; if w11 & 0x4 goto pc+1
>> goto pc+2 ; goto pc+2
>> w11 &= -4 ; w11 &= -3
>>
>>>> "*(u8 *)($ctx + sk_buff::__mono_tc_offset) = r11;"
>>>> "*(u64 *)($ctx + sk_buff::tstamp) = $src;",
>>>> },
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists