| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAMEtUuwDsabgox593uiDNocBgLo=LFE34ByqLkF0iA+F7X=boQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 23:20:39 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
To: Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: filter: use block statements in tcpdump tests
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com> wrote:
> This patch converts raw opcodes for tcpdump tests into
> BPF_STMT()/BPF_JUMP() combinations, which brings it into
> conformity with the rest of the patches and it also makes
> life easier to grasp what's going on in these particular
> test cases when they ever fail. Also arrange payload from
> the jump+holes test in a way as we have with other packet
> payloads in the test suite.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
> ---
> lib/test_bpf.c | 143 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------
> 1 file changed, 75 insertions(+), 68 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/test_bpf.c b/lib/test_bpf.c
> index 6be9119..3c4a1e3 100644
> --- a/lib/test_bpf.c
> +++ b/lib/test_bpf.c
> @@ -560,30 +560,30 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
> {
> "tcpdump port 22",
> .u.insns = {
> - { 0x28, 0, 0, 0x0000000c },
> - { 0x15, 0, 8, 0x000086dd },
> - { 0x30, 0, 0, 0x00000014 },
> - { 0x15, 2, 0, 0x00000084 },
> - { 0x15, 1, 0, 0x00000006 },
> - { 0x15, 0, 17, 0x00000011 },
> - { 0x28, 0, 0, 0x00000036 },
> - { 0x15, 14, 0, 0x00000016 },
> - { 0x28, 0, 0, 0x00000038 },
> - { 0x15, 12, 13, 0x00000016 },
> - { 0x15, 0, 12, 0x00000800 },
> - { 0x30, 0, 0, 0x00000017 },
> - { 0x15, 2, 0, 0x00000084 },
> - { 0x15, 1, 0, 0x00000006 },
> - { 0x15, 0, 8, 0x00000011 },
> - { 0x28, 0, 0, 0x00000014 },
> - { 0x45, 6, 0, 0x00001fff },
> - { 0xb1, 0, 0, 0x0000000e },
> - { 0x48, 0, 0, 0x0000000e },
> - { 0x15, 2, 0, 0x00000016 },
> - { 0x48, 0, 0, 0x00000010 },
> - { 0x15, 0, 1, 0x00000016 },
> - { 0x06, 0, 0, 0x0000ffff },
> - { 0x06, 0, 0, 0x00000000 },
> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LD | BPF_H | BPF_ABS, 12),
> + BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP | BPF_JEQ | BPF_K, 0x86dd, 0, 8), /* IPv6 */
> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LD | BPF_B | BPF_ABS, 20),
> + BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP | BPF_JEQ | BPF_K, 0x84, 2, 0),
> + BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP | BPF_JEQ | BPF_K, 0x6, 1, 0),
> + BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP | BPF_JEQ | BPF_K, 0x11, 0, 17),
> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LD | BPF_H | BPF_ABS, 54),
> + BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP | BPF_JEQ | BPF_K, 22, 14, 0),
> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LD | BPF_H | BPF_ABS, 56),
> + BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP | BPF_JEQ | BPF_K, 22, 12, 13),
> + BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP | BPF_JEQ | BPF_K, 0x0800, 0, 12), /* IPv4 */
> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LD | BPF_B | BPF_ABS, 23),
> + BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP | BPF_JEQ | BPF_K, 0x84, 2, 0),
> + BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP | BPF_JEQ | BPF_K, 0x6, 1, 0),
> + BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP | BPF_JEQ | BPF_K, 0x11, 0, 8),
> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LD | BPF_H | BPF_ABS, 20),
> + BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP | BPF_JSET | BPF_K, 0x1fff, 6, 0),
> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LDX | BPF_B | BPF_MSH, 14),
> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LD | BPF_H | BPF_IND, 14),
> + BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP | BPF_JEQ | BPF_K, 22, 2, 0),
> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LD | BPF_H | BPF_IND, 16),
> + BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP | BPF_JEQ | BPF_K, 22, 0, 1),
> + BPF_STMT(BPF_RET | BPF_K, 0xffff),
> + BPF_STMT(BPF_RET | BPF_K, 0),
> },
> CLASSIC,
> /* 3c:07:54:43:e5:76 > 10:bf:48:d6:43:d6, ethertype IPv4(0x0800)
> @@ -609,39 +609,39 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
> * ((ip[0]&0xf)<<2)) - ((tcp[12]&0xf0)>>2)) != 0) and
> * (len > 115 or len < 30000000000)' -d
> */
> - { 0x28, 0, 0, 0x0000000c },
> - { 0x15, 30, 0, 0x000086dd },
> - { 0x15, 0, 29, 0x00000800 },
> - { 0x30, 0, 0, 0x00000017 },
> - { 0x15, 0, 27, 0x00000006 },
> - { 0x28, 0, 0, 0x00000014 },
> - { 0x45, 25, 0, 0x00001fff },
> - { 0xb1, 0, 0, 0x0000000e },
> - { 0x48, 0, 0, 0x0000000e },
> - { 0x15, 2, 0, 0x00000016 },
> - { 0x48, 0, 0, 0x00000010 },
> - { 0x15, 0, 20, 0x00000016 },
> - { 0x28, 0, 0, 0x00000010 },
> - { 0x02, 0, 0, 0x00000001 },
> - { 0x30, 0, 0, 0x0000000e },
> - { 0x54, 0, 0, 0x0000000f },
> - { 0x64, 0, 0, 0x00000002 },
> - { 0x07, 0, 0, 0x00000005 },
> - { 0x60, 0, 0, 0x00000001 },
> - { 0x1c, 0, 0, 0x00000000 },
> - { 0x02, 0, 0, 0x00000005 },
> - { 0xb1, 0, 0, 0x0000000e },
> - { 0x50, 0, 0, 0x0000001a },
> - { 0x54, 0, 0, 0x000000f0 },
> - { 0x74, 0, 0, 0x00000002 },
> - { 0x07, 0, 0, 0x00000009 },
> - { 0x60, 0, 0, 0x00000005 },
> - { 0x1d, 4, 0, 0x00000000 },
> - { 0x80, 0, 0, 0x00000000 },
> - { 0x25, 1, 0, 0x00000073 },
> - { 0x35, 1, 0, 0xfc23ac00 },
> - { 0x06, 0, 0, 0x0000ffff },
> - { 0x06, 0, 0, 0x00000000 },
> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LD | BPF_H | BPF_ABS, 12),
> + BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP | BPF_JEQ | BPF_K, 0x86dd, 30, 0),
> + BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP | BPF_JEQ | BPF_K, 0x800, 0, 29),
> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LD | BPF_B | BPF_ABS, 23),
> + BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP | BPF_JEQ | BPF_K, 0x6, 0, 27),
> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LD | BPF_H | BPF_ABS, 20),
> + BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP | BPF_JSET | BPF_K, 0x1fff, 25, 0),
> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LDX | BPF_B | BPF_MSH, 14),
> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LD | BPF_H | BPF_IND, 14),
> + BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP | BPF_JEQ | BPF_K, 22, 2, 0),
> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LD | BPF_H | BPF_IND, 16),
> + BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP | BPF_JEQ | BPF_K, 22, 0, 20),
> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LD | BPF_H | BPF_ABS, 16),
> + BPF_STMT(BPF_ST, 1),
> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LD | BPF_B | BPF_ABS, 14),
> + BPF_STMT(BPF_ALU | BPF_AND | BPF_K, 0xf),
> + BPF_STMT(BPF_ALU | BPF_LSH | BPF_K, 2),
> + BPF_STMT(BPF_MISC | BPF_TAX, 0x5), /* libpcap emits K on TAX */
interesting observation. It means that libpcap doesn't init memory
properly and other fields just have junk in them?
and because it was doing it forever we need to accept such 'valid'
instructions? Oh well. ok.
Note to self: make sure to check for tidy instructions in eBPF verifier.
> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LD | BPF_MEM, 1),
> + BPF_STMT(BPF_ALU | BPF_SUB | BPF_X, 0),
> + BPF_STMT(BPF_ST, 5),
> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LDX | BPF_B | BPF_MSH, 14),
> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LD | BPF_B | BPF_IND, 26),
> + BPF_STMT(BPF_ALU | BPF_AND | BPF_K, 0xf0),
> + BPF_STMT(BPF_ALU | BPF_RSH | BPF_K, 2),
> + BPF_STMT(BPF_MISC | BPF_TAX, 0x9), /* libpcap emits K on TAX */
> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LD | BPF_MEM, 5),
> + BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP | BPF_JEQ | BPF_X, 0, 4, 0),
> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LD | BPF_LEN, 0),
> + BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP | BPF_JGT | BPF_K, 0x73, 1, 0),
> + BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP | BPF_JGE | BPF_K, 0xfc23ac00, 1, 0),
> + BPF_STMT(BPF_RET | BPF_K, 0xffff),
> + BPF_STMT(BPF_RET | BPF_K, 0),
> },
> CLASSIC,
> { 0x10, 0xbf, 0x48, 0xd6, 0x43, 0xd6,
> @@ -1453,17 +1453,24 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
> BPF_STMT(BPF_RET | BPF_A, 0),
> },
> CLASSIC,
> - { 0x00, 0x1b, 0x21, 0x3c, 0x9d, 0xf8, 0x90, 0xe2,
> - 0xba, 0x0a, 0x56, 0xb4, 0x08, 0x00, 0x45, 0x00,
> - 0x00, 0x28, 0x00, 0x00, 0x20, 0x00, 0x40, 0x11,
> - 0x00, 0x00, 0xc0, 0xa8, 0x33, 0x01, 0xc0, 0xa8,
> - 0x33, 0x02, 0xbb, 0xb6, 0xa9, 0xfa, 0x00, 0x14,
> - 0x00, 0x00, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc,
> - 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc,
> - 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc,
> - 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc,
> - 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc,
> - 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc },
> + { 0x00, 0x1b, 0x21, 0x3c, 0x9d, 0xf8,
> + 0x90, 0xe2, 0xba, 0x0a, 0x56, 0xb4,
> + 0x08, 0x00,
> + 0x45, 0x00, 0x00, 0x28, 0x00, 0x00,
> + 0x20, 0x00, 0x40, 0x11, 0x00, 0x00, /* IP header */
> + 0xc0, 0xa8, 0x33, 0x01,
> + 0xc0, 0xa8, 0x33, 0x02,
> + 0xbb, 0xb6,
> + 0xa9, 0xfa,
> + 0x00, 0x14, 0x00, 0x00,
> + 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc,
> + 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc,
> + 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc,
> + 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc,
> + 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc,
> + 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc,
> + 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc,
> + 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc, 0xcc },
> { { 88, 0x001b } }
> },
> {
> --
> 1.7.11.7
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists