[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54d4081b9c5db7318feb180df13b7689a09128f8.1556127906.git.paul.chaignon@orange.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2019 21:51:26 +0200
From: Paul Chaignon <paul.chaignon@...nge.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Xiao Han <xiao.han@...nge.com>, Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
Subject: [PATCH bpf v3 2/2] selftests/bpf: test cases for pkt/null checks in
subprogs
The first test case, for pointer null checks, is equivalent to the
following pseudo-code. It checks that the verifier does not complain on
line 6 and recognizes that ptr isn't null.
1: ptr = bpf_map_lookup_elem(map, &key);
2: ret = subprog(ptr) {
3: return ptr != NULL;
4: }
5: if (ret)
6: value = *ptr;
The second test case, for packet bound checks, is equivalent to the
following pseudo-code. It checks that the verifier does not complain on
line 7 and recognizes that the packet is at least 1 byte long.
1: pkt_end = ctx.pkt_end;
2: ptr = ctx.pkt + 8;
3: ret = subprog(ptr, pkt_end) {
4: return ptr <= pkt_end;
5: }
6: if (ret)
7: value = *(u8 *)ctx.pkt;
Signed-off-by: Paul Chaignon <paul.chaignon@...nge.com>
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/calls.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++
.../bpf/verifier/direct_packet_access.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 47 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/calls.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/calls.c
index fb11240b758b..9093a8f64dc6 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/calls.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/calls.c
@@ -374,6 +374,31 @@
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
.flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
+{
+ "calls: ptr null check in subprog",
+ .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_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem),
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0),
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_0),
+ BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 1, 0, 3),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1),
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_6, 0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_1, 0, 1),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .errstr_unpriv = "function calls to other bpf functions are allowed for root only",
+ .fixup_map_hash_48b = { 3 },
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
+ .result = ACCEPT,
+ .retval = 0,
+},
{
"calls: two calls with args",
.insns = {
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/direct_packet_access.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/direct_packet_access.c
index e3fc22e672c2..d5c596fdc4b9 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/direct_packet_access.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/direct_packet_access.c
@@ -631,3 +631,25 @@
.errstr = "invalid access to packet",
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
},
+{
+ "direct packet access: test29 (reg > pkt_end in subprog)",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_1,
+ offsetof(struct __sk_buff, data)),
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1,
+ offsetof(struct __sk_buff, data_end)),
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_6),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_3, 8),
+ BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 1, 0, 4),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1),
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_6, 0),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JGT, BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_2, 1),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .result = ACCEPT,
+ .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
+},
--
2.17.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists