| 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: <d8fa1fc37a2c8b39eee142c5dd0e6de36a58493d.1509576758.git.daniel@iogearbox.net>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 23:58:09 +0100
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To: davem@...emloft.net
Cc: alexei.starovoitov@...il.com, john.r.fastabend@...il.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Subject: [PATCH net-next 1/3] bpf: minor cleanups after merge
Two minor cleanups after Dave's recent merge in f8ddadc4db6c
("Merge git://git.kernel.org...") of net into net-next in
order to get the code in line with what was done originally
in the net tree: i) use max() instead of max_t() since both
ranges are u16, ii) don't split the direct access test cases
in the middle with bpf_exit test cases from 390ee7e29fc
("bpf: enforce return code for cgroup-bpf programs").
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
---
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 2 +-
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 144 ++++++++++++++--------------
2 files changed, 73 insertions(+), 73 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 2bb6d6a..2cc3e94 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -2532,7 +2532,7 @@ static void find_good_pkt_pointers(struct bpf_verifier_state *state,
continue;
reg = &state->stack[i].spilled_ptr;
if (reg->type == type && reg->id == dst_reg->id)
- reg->range = max_t(u16, reg->range, new_range);
+ reg->range = max(reg->range, new_range);
}
}
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
index 1b93941..3b38a3d 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
@@ -7250,78 +7250,6 @@ struct test_val {
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
},
{
- "bpf_exit with invalid return code. test1",
- .insns = {
- BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, 0),
- BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
- },
- .errstr = "R0 has value (0x0; 0xffffffff)",
- .result = REJECT,
- .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SOCK,
- },
- {
- "bpf_exit with invalid return code. test2",
- .insns = {
- BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, 0),
- BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_0, 1),
- BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
- },
- .result = ACCEPT,
- .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SOCK,
- },
- {
- "bpf_exit with invalid return code. test3",
- .insns = {
- BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, 0),
- BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_0, 3),
- BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
- },
- .errstr = "R0 has value (0x0; 0x3)",
- .result = REJECT,
- .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SOCK,
- },
- {
- "bpf_exit with invalid return code. test4",
- .insns = {
- BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
- BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
- },
- .result = ACCEPT,
- .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SOCK,
- },
- {
- "bpf_exit with invalid return code. test5",
- .insns = {
- BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 2),
- BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
- },
- .errstr = "R0 has value (0x2; 0x0)",
- .result = REJECT,
- .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SOCK,
- },
- {
- "bpf_exit with invalid return code. test6",
- .insns = {
- BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
- BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
- },
- .errstr = "R0 is not a known value (ctx)",
- .result = REJECT,
- .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SOCK,
- },
- {
- "bpf_exit with invalid return code. test7",
- .insns = {
- BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, 0),
- BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, 4),
- BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_MUL, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2),
- BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
- },
- .errstr = "R0 has unknown scalar value",
- .result = REJECT,
- .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SOCK,
- },
- {
"XDP pkt read, pkt_end >= pkt_data', bad access 1",
.insns = {
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1,
@@ -7470,6 +7398,78 @@ struct test_val {
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
.flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
+ {
+ "bpf_exit with invalid return code. test1",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, 0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .errstr = "R0 has value (0x0; 0xffffffff)",
+ .result = REJECT,
+ .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SOCK,
+ },
+ {
+ "bpf_exit with invalid return code. test2",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, 0),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_0, 1),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .result = ACCEPT,
+ .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SOCK,
+ },
+ {
+ "bpf_exit with invalid return code. test3",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, 0),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_0, 3),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .errstr = "R0 has value (0x0; 0x3)",
+ .result = REJECT,
+ .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SOCK,
+ },
+ {
+ "bpf_exit with invalid return code. test4",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .result = ACCEPT,
+ .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SOCK,
+ },
+ {
+ "bpf_exit with invalid return code. test5",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 2),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .errstr = "R0 has value (0x2; 0x0)",
+ .result = REJECT,
+ .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SOCK,
+ },
+ {
+ "bpf_exit with invalid return code. test6",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .errstr = "R0 is not a known value (ctx)",
+ .result = REJECT,
+ .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SOCK,
+ },
+ {
+ "bpf_exit with invalid return code. test7",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, 0),
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, 4),
+ BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_MUL, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .errstr = "R0 has unknown scalar value",
+ .result = REJECT,
+ .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SOCK,
+ },
};
static int probe_filter_length(const struct bpf_insn *fp)
--
1.9.3
Powered by blists - more mailing lists