| 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: <20170512.222902.70689421845075550.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 22:29:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: daniel@...earbox.net
CC: ast@...com, alexei.starovoitov@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 3/3] bpf: Update MAP test_verifier.c tests wrt. alignment.
Now that we perform proper alignment tracking of MAP accesses in the
verifier, most of the MAP tests in test_verifier.c no longer need the
special F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS flag or can trivially be
made to not need it.
struct test_val is an integer count followed by an array of integers.
So for most tests, we adjust the memory access to be 32-bit rather
than 64-bit.
The exception is for tests where the 64-bit access is an important
aspect for what the test is trying to validate. For example,
the test "invalid map access into an array with a invalid max check"
is trying to do a 64-bit store at the final 4 bytes of the test
array which violates the valid access range.
We could fix this by arranging the test array size such that
the last entry is 8 byte aligned, but that is for future
consideration.
Two other tests which retain the flag are intentionally doing
unaligned accesses to a MAP element.
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 20 +++++---------------
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
index 889fb5a..73ac23a 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
@@ -3117,7 +3117,6 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.errstr_unpriv = "R0 pointer arithmetic prohibited",
.result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = ACCEPT,
- .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"valid map access into an array with a variable",
@@ -3133,7 +3132,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JGE, BPF_REG_1, MAX_ENTRIES, 3),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_LSH, BPF_REG_1, 2),
BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
- BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, 0,
+ BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, 0,
offsetof(struct test_val, foo)),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
@@ -3141,7 +3140,6 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.errstr_unpriv = "R0 pointer arithmetic prohibited",
.result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = ACCEPT,
- .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"valid map access into an array with a signed variable",
@@ -3161,7 +3159,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 0),
BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_LSH, BPF_REG_1, 2),
BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
- BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, 0,
+ BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, 0,
offsetof(struct test_val, foo)),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
@@ -3169,7 +3167,6 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.errstr_unpriv = "R0 pointer arithmetic prohibited",
.result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = ACCEPT,
- .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"invalid map access into an array with a constant",
@@ -3211,7 +3208,6 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.errstr = "R0 min value is outside of the array range",
.result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = REJECT,
- .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"invalid map access into an array with a variable",
@@ -3226,7 +3222,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_LSH, BPF_REG_1, 2),
BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
- BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, 0,
+ BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, 0,
offsetof(struct test_val, foo)),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
@@ -3235,7 +3231,6 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.errstr = "R0 min value is negative, either use unsigned index or do a if (index >=0) check.",
.result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = REJECT,
- .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"invalid map access into an array with no floor check",
@@ -3253,7 +3248,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 0),
BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_LSH, BPF_REG_1, 2),
BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
- BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, 0,
+ BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, 0,
offsetof(struct test_val, foo)),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
@@ -3262,7 +3257,6 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.errstr = "R0 min value is negative, either use unsigned index or do a if (index >=0) check.",
.result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = REJECT,
- .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"invalid map access into an array with a invalid max check",
@@ -3319,7 +3313,6 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.errstr = "R0 min value is negative, either use unsigned index or do a if (index >=0) check.",
.result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = REJECT,
- .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"multiple registers share map_lookup_elem result",
@@ -3435,7 +3428,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 1),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_LSH, BPF_REG_1, 2),
BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
- BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, 0, offsetof(struct test_val, foo)),
+ BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, 0, offsetof(struct test_val, foo)),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.fixup_map2 = { 3 },
@@ -3443,7 +3436,6 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.result = REJECT,
.errstr_unpriv = "R0 pointer arithmetic prohibited",
.result_unpriv = REJECT,
- .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"constant register |= constant should keep constant type",
@@ -4835,7 +4827,6 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.errstr = "R0 min value is negative, either use unsigned index or do a if (index >=0) check.",
.result = REJECT,
.result_unpriv = REJECT,
- .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"invalid range check",
@@ -4867,7 +4858,6 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.errstr = "R0 min value is negative, either use unsigned index or do a if (index >=0) check.",
.result = REJECT,
.result_unpriv = REJECT,
- .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"map in map access",
--
2.1.2.532.g19b5d50
Powered by blists - more mailing lists