| 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: <20180227102859.466d6d78@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 10:28:59 +1100
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the bpf tree
Hi Dave,
On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 11:41:47 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
>
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
>
> between commit:
>
> ca36960211eb ("bpf: allow xadd only on aligned memory")
>
> from the bpf tree and commit:
>
> 23d191a82c13 ("bpf: add various jit test cases")
>
> from the bpf-next tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
>
> diff --cc tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> index 437c0b1c9d21,c987d3a2426f..000000000000
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> @@@ -11163,64 -11140,95 +11166,153 @@@ static struct bpf_test tests[] =
> .result = REJECT,
> .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACEPOINT,
> },
> + {
> + "xadd/w check unaligned stack",
> + .insns = {
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
> + BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_0, -8),
> + BPF_STX_XADD(BPF_W, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_0, -7),
> + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_10, -8),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + },
> + .result = REJECT,
> + .errstr = "misaligned stack access off",
> + .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
> + },
> + {
> + "xadd/w check unaligned map",
> + .insns = {
> + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0),
> + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
> + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8),
> + BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0),
> + BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0,
> + BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem),
> + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 1),
> + BPF_STX_XADD(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, 3),
> + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 3),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + },
> + .fixup_map1 = { 3 },
> + .result = REJECT,
> + .errstr = "misaligned value access off",
> + .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
> + },
> + {
> + "xadd/w check unaligned pkt",
> + .insns = {
> + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1,
> + offsetof(struct xdp_md, data)),
> + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_1,
> + offsetof(struct xdp_md, data_end)),
> + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2),
> + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 8),
> + BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JLT, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_3, 2),
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 99),
> + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JA, 0, 0, 6),
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
> + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_2, 0, 0),
> + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_2, 3, 0),
> + BPF_STX_XADD(BPF_W, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_0, 1),
> + BPF_STX_XADD(BPF_W, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_0, 2),
> + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2, 1),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + },
> + .result = REJECT,
> + .errstr = "BPF_XADD stores into R2 packet",
> + .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
> + },
> + {
> + "jit: lsh, rsh, arsh by 1",
> + .insns = {
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 0xff),
> + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_LSH, BPF_REG_1, 1),
> + BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_LSH, BPF_REG_1, 1),
> + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_1, 0x3fc, 1),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_RSH, BPF_REG_1, 1),
> + BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_RSH, BPF_REG_1, 1),
> + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_1, 0xff, 1),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ARSH, BPF_REG_1, 1),
> + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_1, 0x7f, 1),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 2),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + },
> + .result = ACCEPT,
> + .retval = 2,
> + },
> + {
> + "jit: mov32 for ldimm64, 1",
> + .insns = {
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 2),
> + BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_1, 0xfeffffffffffffffULL),
> + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_RSH, BPF_REG_1, 32),
> + BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_2, 0xfeffffffULL),
> + BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2, 1),
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + },
> + .result = ACCEPT,
> + .retval = 2,
> + },
> + {
> + "jit: mov32 for ldimm64, 2",
> + .insns = {
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
> + BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_1, 0x1ffffffffULL),
> + BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_2, 0xffffffffULL),
> + BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2, 1),
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 2),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + },
> + .result = ACCEPT,
> + .retval = 2,
> + },
> + {
> + "jit: various mul tests",
> + .insns = {
> + BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_2, 0xeeff0d413122ULL),
> + BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_0, 0xfefefeULL),
> + BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_1, 0xefefefULL),
> + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_MUL, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
> + BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2, 2),
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_3, 0xfefefeULL),
> + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_MUL, BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_1),
> + BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_2, 2),
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + BPF_MOV32_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_2),
> + BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_0, 0xfefefeULL),
> + BPF_ALU32_REG(BPF_MUL, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
> + BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2, 2),
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_3, 0xfefefeULL),
> + BPF_ALU32_REG(BPF_MUL, BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_1),
> + BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_2, 2),
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_0, 0x952a7bbcULL),
> + BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_1, 0xfefefeULL),
> + BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_2, 0xeeff0d413122ULL),
> + BPF_ALU32_REG(BPF_MUL, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1),
> + BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_0, 2),
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 2),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + },
> + .result = ACCEPT,
> + .retval = 2,
> + },
> +
> };
>
> static int probe_filter_length(const struct bpf_insn *fp)
This conflict is now between the bfp tree and the net-next tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists