| 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: <20181128.234121.1210186634068829957.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 23:41:21 -0800 (PST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: daniel@...earbox.net
CC: ast@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH RFC bpf-next 3/3] bpf: Apply F_LOAD_WITH_ANY_ALIGNMENT to
ACCEPT test cases too.
If a testcase has alignment problems but is expected to be ACCEPT,
verify it using F_LOAD_WITH_ANY_ALIGNMENT however to not try to
execute it.
In this way folks on inefficient unaligned access architectures
can more fully regression test the verifier.
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
index 1a68863..8191f3e 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
@@ -3919,6 +3919,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
},
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
.result = ACCEPT,
+ .flags = F_LOAD_WITH_ANY_ALIGNMENT,
},
{
"direct packet access: test21 (x += pkt_ptr, 2)",
@@ -3944,6 +3945,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
},
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
.result = ACCEPT,
+ .flags = F_LOAD_WITH_ANY_ALIGNMENT,
},
{
"direct packet access: test22 (x += pkt_ptr, 3)",
@@ -3974,6 +3976,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
},
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
.result = ACCEPT,
+ .flags = F_LOAD_WITH_ANY_ALIGNMENT,
},
{
"direct packet access: test23 (x += pkt_ptr, 4)",
@@ -4026,6 +4029,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
},
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
.result = ACCEPT,
+ .flags = F_LOAD_WITH_ANY_ALIGNMENT,
},
{
"direct packet access: test25 (marking on <, good access)",
@@ -7733,6 +7737,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.result = ACCEPT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
.retval = 0 /* csum_diff of 64-byte packet */,
+ .flags = F_LOAD_WITH_ANY_ALIGNMENT,
},
{
"helper access to variable memory: size = 0 not allowed on NULL (!ARG_PTR_TO_MEM_OR_NULL)",
@@ -9695,6 +9700,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
},
.result = ACCEPT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
+ .flags = F_LOAD_WITH_ANY_ALIGNMENT,
},
{
"XDP pkt read, pkt_data' > pkt_end, bad access 1",
@@ -9866,6 +9872,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
},
.result = ACCEPT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
+ .flags = F_LOAD_WITH_ANY_ALIGNMENT,
},
{
"XDP pkt read, pkt_end < pkt_data', bad access 1",
@@ -9978,6 +9985,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
},
.result = ACCEPT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
+ .flags = F_LOAD_WITH_ANY_ALIGNMENT,
},
{
"XDP pkt read, pkt_end >= pkt_data', bad access 1",
@@ -10035,6 +10043,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
},
.result = ACCEPT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
+ .flags = F_LOAD_WITH_ANY_ALIGNMENT,
},
{
"XDP pkt read, pkt_data' <= pkt_end, bad access 1",
@@ -10147,6 +10156,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
},
.result = ACCEPT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
+ .flags = F_LOAD_WITH_ANY_ALIGNMENT,
},
{
"XDP pkt read, pkt_meta' > pkt_data, bad access 1",
@@ -10318,6 +10328,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
},
.result = ACCEPT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
+ .flags = F_LOAD_WITH_ANY_ALIGNMENT,
},
{
"XDP pkt read, pkt_data < pkt_meta', bad access 1",
@@ -10430,6 +10441,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
},
.result = ACCEPT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
+ .flags = F_LOAD_WITH_ANY_ALIGNMENT,
},
{
"XDP pkt read, pkt_data >= pkt_meta', bad access 1",
@@ -10487,6 +10499,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
},
.result = ACCEPT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
+ .flags = F_LOAD_WITH_ANY_ALIGNMENT,
},
{
"XDP pkt read, pkt_meta' <= pkt_data, bad access 1",
@@ -12406,6 +12419,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
.result = ACCEPT,
.retval = 1,
+ .flags = F_LOAD_WITH_ANY_ALIGNMENT,
},
{
"calls: pkt_ptr spill into caller stack 4",
@@ -12440,6 +12454,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
.result = ACCEPT,
.retval = 1,
+ .flags = F_LOAD_WITH_ANY_ALIGNMENT,
},
{
"calls: pkt_ptr spill into caller stack 5",
@@ -12585,6 +12600,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
},
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
.result = ACCEPT,
+ .flags = F_LOAD_WITH_ANY_ALIGNMENT,
},
{
"calls: pkt_ptr spill into caller stack 9",
@@ -13508,6 +13524,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
},
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
.result = ACCEPT,
+ .flags = F_LOAD_WITH_ANY_ALIGNMENT,
},
{
"reference tracking in call: free reference in subprog",
@@ -14347,6 +14364,11 @@ static void do_test_single(struct bpf_test *test, bool unpriv,
strerror(errno));
goto fail_log;
}
+#ifndef CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS
+ if (fd_prog >= 0 &&
+ (test->flags & F_LOAD_WITH_ANY_ALIGNMENT))
+ goto test_ok;
+#endif
} else {
if (fd_prog >= 0) {
printf("FAIL\nUnexpected success to load!\n");
@@ -14380,6 +14402,9 @@ static void do_test_single(struct bpf_test *test, bool unpriv,
goto fail_log;
}
}
+#ifndef CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS
+test_ok:
+#endif
(*passes)++;
printf("OK%s\n", reject_from_alignment ?
" (NOTE: reject due to unknown alignment)" : "");
--
2.1.2.532.g19b5d50
Powered by blists - more mailing lists