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

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

Message-Id: <3ED3A4F8-CC01-4179-9154-6FC5338E83B5@netronome.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 May 2019 15:31:24 +0100
From:   Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@...ronome.com>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc:     Y Song <ys114321@...il.com>,
        Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...il.com>,
        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 23 May 2019, at 15:02, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote:
> 
> On 05/23/2019 08:38 AM, Y Song wrote:
>> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 1:46 PM Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...il.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
>> Then maybe you want to add a Fixes tag and resubmit?
> 
> Why would the test case need a fixes tag? It's common practice that we have
> BPF fixes that we queue to bpf tree along with kselftest test cases related
> to them. Therefore, applied as well, thanks for following up!
> 
> Björn, in my email from the fix, I mentioned we should have test snippets
> ideally for all of the alu32 insns to not miss something falling through the
> cracks when JITs get added or changed. If you have some cycles to add the
> remaining missing ones, that would be much appreciated.

Björn,

  If you don’t have time, I can take this alu32 test case follow up as well.

Regards,
Jiong

> 
> Thanks,
> Daniel