netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf] selftests: bpf: add zero extend checks for ALU32 and/or/xor

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Wed, 22 May 2019 22:46:24 +0200
From:   Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...il.com>
To:     Y Song <ys114321@...il.com>
Cc:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf] selftests: bpf: add zero extend checks for ALU32 and/or/xor

On Wed, 22 May 2019 at 20:13, Y Song <ys114321@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 2:25 AM Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > Add three tests to test_verifier/basic_instr that make sure that the
> > high 32-bits of the destination register is cleared after an ALU32
> > and/or/xor.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...il.com>
>
> I think the patch intends for bpf-next, right? The patch itself looks
> good to me.
> Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
>

Thank you. Actually, it was intended for the bpf tree, as a test
follow up for this [1] fix.


Cheers,
Björn

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAJ+HfNifkxKz8df7gLBuqWA6+t6awrrRK6oW6m1nAYETJD+Vfg@mail.gmail.com/

> > ---
> >  .../selftests/bpf/verifier/basic_instr.c      | 39 +++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 39 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/basic_instr.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/basic_instr.c
> > index ed91a7b9a456..4d844089938e 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/basic_instr.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/basic_instr.c
> > @@ -132,3 +132,42 @@
> >         .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
> >         .result = ACCEPT,
> >  },
> > +{
> > +       "and32 reg zero extend check",
> > +       .insns = {
> > +       BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, -1),
> > +       BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, -2),
> > +       BPF_ALU32_REG(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2),
> > +       BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_RSH, BPF_REG_0, 32),
> > +       BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> > +       },
> > +       .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
> > +       .result = ACCEPT,
> > +       .retval = 0,
> > +},
> > +{
> > +       "or32 reg zero extend check",
> > +       .insns = {
> > +       BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, -1),
> > +       BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, -2),
> > +       BPF_ALU32_REG(BPF_OR, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2),
> > +       BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_RSH, BPF_REG_0, 32),
> > +       BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> > +       },
> > +       .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
> > +       .result = ACCEPT,
> > +       .retval = 0,
> > +},
> > +{
> > +       "xor32 reg zero extend check",
> > +       .insns = {
> > +       BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, -1),
> > +       BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 0),
> > +       BPF_ALU32_REG(BPF_XOR, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2),
> > +       BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_RSH, BPF_REG_0, 32),
> > +       BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> > +       },
> > +       .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
> > +       .result = ACCEPT,
> > +       .retval = 0,
> > +},
> > --
> > 2.20.1
> >