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: <20190123233203.jzxw2xkqwygraqui@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 15:32:05 -0800 From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> To: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com> Cc: daniel@...earbox.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, oss-drivers@...ronome.com Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/3] selftests: bpf: break up test_verifier On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 10:43:38AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > Break up the first 10 kLoC of test verifier test cases > out into smaller files. Looks like git line counting > gets a little flismy above 16 bit integers, so we need > two commits to break up test_verifier. > > Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com> > Acked-by: Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@...ronome.com> > --- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 10100 ---------------- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/and.c | 53 + > .../selftests/bpf/verifier/array_access.c | 238 + ... > - { > - "DIV64 by 0, zero check", > - .insns = { > - BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 42), > - BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 0), > - BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 1), > - BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_DIV, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1), > - BPF_EXIT_INSN(), > - }, > - .result = ACCEPT, > - .retval = 42, > - }, ... > --- /dev/null > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/and.c > @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ > +{ > + "invalid and of negative number", > + .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_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 4), > + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0, 0), > + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_1, -4), > + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_LSH, BPF_REG_1, 2), > + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1), > + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, 0, > + offsetof(struct test_val, foo)), > + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), > + }, > + .fixup_map_hash_48b = { 3 }, > + .errstr = "R0 max value is outside of the array range", > + .result = REJECT, > + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, > +}, I like the removal of one tab, but since we're refactoring the whole thing can we remove another tab from instructions? In many cases we wrap the lines which makes tests a bit harder to read/write since jmp offsets don't easily add from current line number. In addition I would propose to represet LD_MAP_FD as two lines too, but that's optional. I'm thinking to try that for new tests. So how about the following indent: { "invalid and of negative number", .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_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 4), BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0, 0), BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_1, -4), BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_LSH, BPF_REG_1, 2), BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1), BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, 0, offsetof(struct test_val, foo)), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, .fixup_map_hash_48b = { 3 }, .errstr = "R0 max value is outside of the array range", .result = REJECT, .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, Notice how calls and offsetof() fits into 80 char. Another alternative is to switch to two spaces instead of tab: { "invalid and of negative number", .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_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 4), BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0, 0), BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_1, -4), BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_LSH, BPF_REG_1, 2), BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1), BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, 0, offsetof(struct test_val, foo)), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, .fixup_map_hash_48b = { 3 }, .errstr = "R0 max value is outside of the array range", .result = REJECT, .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, Thoughts?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists