[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7744ae71-cb68-4341-313b-aeebf87806fb@fb.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 11:25:18 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>
To: Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
CC: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
iovisor-dev <iovisor-dev@...ts.iovisor.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/4] bpf/verifier: when pruning a branch, ignore
its write marks
On 8/22/17 11:03 AM, Edward Cree wrote:
> On 22/08/17 16:50, Edward Cree wrote:
>> On 22/08/17 16:24, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>> Do you have a test case for this by any chance?
>> I think something like
>> if (cond)
>> r0=0;
>> if (cond)
>> r0=0;
>> return r0;
>> might tickle the bug, but I'm not sure.
> It turns out that (cond) has to be constructed not to alter our knowledge
> of whatever register we're testing, but apart from that, this works.
> {
> "liveness pruning and write screening",
> .insns = {
> /* Get an unknown value */
> BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, 0),
> /* branch conditions teach us nothing about R2 */
> BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JGE, BPF_REG_2, 0, 1),
> BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
> BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JGE, BPF_REG_2, 0, 1),
> BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
> BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> },
> .errstr = "R0 !read_ok",
> .result = REJECT,
> .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_LWT_IN,
> },
> This test fails on net-next, but passes with my patch.
> I'll include it in the next spin of the series.
nice. thanks for the test!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists