netdev - Re: [bpf-next v3 02/12] selftests/bpf: Avoid a clobbering of errno

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]

Date:   Wed, 10 Jul 2019 16:51:51 -0700
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To:     Krzesimir Nowak <krzesimir@...volk.io>
Cc:     open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alban Crequy <alban@...volk.io>,
        Iago López Galeiras <iago@...volk.io>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        xdp-newbies@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [bpf-next v3 02/12] selftests/bpf: Avoid a clobbering of errno

On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 3:42 PM Krzesimir Nowak <krzesimir@...volk.io> wrote:
>
> Save errno right after bpf_prog_test_run returns, so we later check
> the error code actually set by bpf_prog_test_run, not by some libcap
> function.
>
> Changes since v1:
> - Fix the "Fixes:" tag to mention actual commit that introduced the
>   bug
>
> Changes since v2:
> - Move the declaration so it fits the reverse christmas tree style.
>
> Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
> Fixes: 832c6f2c29ec ("bpf: test make sure to run unpriv test cases in test_verifier")
> Signed-off-by: Krzesimir Nowak <krzesimir@...volk.io>
> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> index b8d065623ead..3fe126e0083b 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> @@ -823,16 +823,18 @@ static int do_prog_test_run(int fd_prog, bool unpriv, uint32_t expected_val,
>         __u8 tmp[TEST_DATA_LEN << 2];
>         __u32 size_tmp = sizeof(tmp);
>         uint32_t retval;
> +       int saved_errno;
>         int err;
>
>         if (unpriv)
>                 set_admin(true);
>         err = bpf_prog_test_run(fd_prog, 1, data, size_data,
>                                 tmp, &size_tmp, &retval, NULL);

Given err is either 0 or -1, how about instead making err useful right
here without extra variable?

if (bpf_prog_test_run(...))
        err = errno;

> +       saved_errno = errno;
>         if (unpriv)
>                 set_admin(false);
>         if (err) {
> -               switch (errno) {
> +               switch (saved_errno) {
>                 case 524/*ENOTSUPP*/:

ENOTSUPP is defined in include/linux/errno.h, is there any problem
with using this in selftests?

>                         printf("Did not run the program (not supported) ");
>                         return 0;
> --
> 2.20.1
>