netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] selftests/bpf: skip verifier tests that depend on CONFIG_CGROUP

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 12 Dec 2018 21:23:30 +0000
From:   Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>
CC:     Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <davem@...emloft.net>, <ast@...nel.org>, <daniel@...earbox.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] selftests/bpf: skip verifier tests that
 depend on CONFIG_CGROUP_BPF

On 12/12/18 20:13, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> that won't work either.
> "bpf feature set" is a lot more than number of program
> and map types the kernel supports. There are all sorts of
> helper combinations, hooks, and verifier improvements.
> test_verifier.c must test all that.
> I don't think there is a way to make usptream test_verfier.c
> not to report failure on older kernels.
But it's not just older kernels; AIUI there are config options
 that also affect this.  Are you saying that test_verifier
 should only be expected to run / pass on allyesconfig kernels?

I think that for the cases where we _can_ do it easily (which
 seems to be precisely things like prog_type which don't require
 any additional annotation of test cases) we should skip tests
 that aren't supported by the running kernel.

An alternative is to have a whitelist of verifier error messages
 that all mean "your kernel is missing a feature this program
 needs" in test_verifier, so that any test case that hits any of
 them can be marked as skipped.  That doesn't cover every
 possibility (sometimes the same message could be caused by a
 plain old invalid program) but it might help.

-Ed