| 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: <560d56aa4ffcd2120410b332c5c2062d4e0c8c97.1519680589.git.daniel@iogearbox.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 22:34:33 +0100
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To: ast@...nel.org
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] bpf: add tail call tests to test_verifier
One of the downsides of the test_bpf module was that since being
in kernel space, it couldn't test-run tail calls. Now that the
test_verifier has the ability to perform run-time tests, populate
the prog array so we actually jump into other BPF programs and
can check all corner cases. Most useful in combination with JITs.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 117 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 110 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
index bd3a08c..9eb05f3 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
@@ -2589,17 +2589,74 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.result = ACCEPT,
},
{
+ "runtime/jit: tail_call within bounds, prog once",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_3, 0),
+ BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_2, 0),
+ BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0,
+ BPF_FUNC_tail_call),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .fixup_prog = { 1 },
+ .result = ACCEPT,
+ .retval = 42,
+ },
+ {
+ "runtime/jit: tail_call within bounds, prog loop",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_3, 1),
+ BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_2, 0),
+ BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0,
+ BPF_FUNC_tail_call),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .fixup_prog = { 1 },
+ .result = ACCEPT,
+ .retval = 41,
+ },
+ {
+ "runtime/jit: tail_call within bounds, no prog",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_3, 2),
+ BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_2, 0),
+ BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0,
+ BPF_FUNC_tail_call),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .fixup_prog = { 1 },
+ .result = ACCEPT,
+ .retval = 1,
+ },
+ {
+ "runtime/jit: tail_call out of bounds",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_3, 256),
+ BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_2, 0),
+ BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0,
+ BPF_FUNC_tail_call),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 2),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .fixup_prog = { 1 },
+ .result = ACCEPT,
+ .retval = 2,
+ },
+ {
"runtime/jit: pass negative index to tail_call",
.insns = {
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_3, -1),
BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_2, 0),
BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0,
BPF_FUNC_tail_call),
- BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 2),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.fixup_prog = { 1 },
.result = ACCEPT,
+ .retval = 2,
},
{
"runtime/jit: pass > 32bit index to tail_call",
@@ -2608,11 +2665,12 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_2, 0),
BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0,
BPF_FUNC_tail_call),
- BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 2),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.fixup_prog = { 2 },
.result = ACCEPT,
+ .retval = 42,
},
{
"stack pointer arithmetic",
@@ -11278,16 +11336,61 @@ static int create_map(uint32_t size_value, uint32_t max_elem)
return fd;
}
+static int create_prog_dummy1(void)
+{
+ struct bpf_insn prog[] = {
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 42),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ };
+
+ return bpf_load_program(BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCKET_FILTER, prog,
+ ARRAY_SIZE(prog), "GPL", 0, NULL, 0);
+}
+
+static int create_prog_dummy2(int mfd, int idx)
+{
+ struct bpf_insn prog[] = {
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_3, idx),
+ BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_2, mfd),
+ BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0,
+ BPF_FUNC_tail_call),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 41),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ };
+
+ return bpf_load_program(BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCKET_FILTER, prog,
+ ARRAY_SIZE(prog), "GPL", 0, NULL, 0);
+}
+
static int create_prog_array(void)
{
- int fd;
+ int p1key = 0, p2key = 1;
+ int mfd, p1fd, p2fd;
- fd = bpf_create_map(BPF_MAP_TYPE_PROG_ARRAY, sizeof(int),
- sizeof(int), 4, 0);
- if (fd < 0)
+ mfd = bpf_create_map(BPF_MAP_TYPE_PROG_ARRAY, sizeof(int),
+ sizeof(int), 4, 0);
+ if (mfd < 0) {
printf("Failed to create prog array '%s'!\n", strerror(errno));
+ return -1;
+ }
- return fd;
+ p1fd = create_prog_dummy1();
+ p2fd = create_prog_dummy2(mfd, p2key);
+ if (p1fd < 0 || p2fd < 0)
+ goto out;
+ if (bpf_map_update_elem(mfd, &p1key, &p1fd, BPF_ANY) < 0)
+ goto out;
+ if (bpf_map_update_elem(mfd, &p2key, &p2fd, BPF_ANY) < 0)
+ goto out;
+ close(p2fd);
+ close(p1fd);
+
+ return mfd;
+out:
+ close(p2fd);
+ close(p1fd);
+ close(mfd);
+ return -1;
}
static int create_map_in_map(void)
--
2.9.5
Powered by blists - more mailing lists