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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJ+HfNj_ZBqdwoWh7w4M3mUm_vPUwJ2QBWpyKCSSvk7e8xKz6w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 May 2019 18:05:22 +0200
From:   Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...il.com>
To:     Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@...ronome.com>
Cc:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Y Song <ys114321@...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 Thu, 23 May 2019 at 16:31, Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@...ronome.com> wrote:
>
>
> > 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.
>

Jiong, that would be great. Thank you. I'd guess it would take much
longer for me to do it (gmail.com time vs intel.com time ;-)).


Björn

> Regards,
> Jiong
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Daniel
>