| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAEf4BzYaV=AxYZna225qKzyWPteU4YFPiBRE4cO30tYmyN_pJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 17:37:48 -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 11/12] selftests/bpf: Add tests for
bpf_prog_test_run for perf events progs
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 3:42 PM Krzesimir Nowak <krzesimir@...volk.io> wrote:
>
> The tests check if ctx and data are correctly prepared from ctx_in and
> data_in, so accessing the ctx and using the bpf_perf_prog_read_value
> work as expected.
>
These are x86_64-specific tests, aren't they? Should probably guard
them behind #ifdef's.
> Signed-off-by: Krzesimir Nowak <krzesimir@...volk.io>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 48 ++++++++++
> .../selftests/bpf/verifier/perf_event_run.c | 96 +++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 144 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/perf_event_run.c
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> index 6f124cc4ee34..484ea8842b06 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> @@ -295,6 +295,54 @@ static void bpf_fill_scale(struct bpf_test *self)
> }
> }
>
> +static void bpf_fill_perf_event_test_run_check(struct bpf_test *self)
> +{
> + compiletime_assert(
> + sizeof(struct bpf_perf_event_data) <= TEST_CTX_LEN,
> + "buffer for ctx is too short to fit struct bpf_perf_event_data");
> + compiletime_assert(
> + sizeof(struct bpf_perf_event_value) <= TEST_DATA_LEN,
> + "buffer for data is too short to fit struct bpf_perf_event_value");
> +
> + struct bpf_perf_event_data ctx = {
> + .regs = (bpf_user_pt_regs_t) {
> + .r15 = 1,
> + .r14 = 2,
> + .r13 = 3,
> + .r12 = 4,
> + .rbp = 5,
> + .rbx = 6,
> + .r11 = 7,
> + .r10 = 8,
> + .r9 = 9,
> + .r8 = 10,
> + .rax = 11,
> + .rcx = 12,
> + .rdx = 13,
> + .rsi = 14,
> + .rdi = 15,
> + .orig_rax = 16,
> + .rip = 17,
> + .cs = 18,
> + .eflags = 19,
> + .rsp = 20,
> + .ss = 21,
> + },
> + .sample_period = 1,
> + .addr = 2,
> + };
> + struct bpf_perf_event_value data = {
> + .counter = 1,
> + .enabled = 2,
> + .running = 3,
> + };
> +
> + memcpy(self->ctx, &ctx, sizeof(ctx));
> + memcpy(self->data, &data, sizeof(data));
Just curious, just assignment didn't work?
> + free(self->fill_insns);
> + self->fill_insns = NULL;
> +}
> +
> /* BPF_SK_LOOKUP contains 13 instructions, if you need to fix up maps */
> #define BPF_SK_LOOKUP(func) \
> /* struct bpf_sock_tuple tuple = {} */ \
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/perf_event_run.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/perf_event_run.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..3f877458a7f8
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/perf_event_run.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,96 @@
> +#define PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_PTREG(PT_REG_FIELD, VALUE) \
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_CTX(offsetof(bpf_user_pt_regs_t, PT_REG_FIELD), VALUE)
> +#define PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_EVENT(PED_FIELD, VALUE) \
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_CTX(offsetof(struct bpf_perf_event_data, PED_FIELD), VALUE)
> +#define PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_CTX(OFFSET, VALUE) \
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_64(BPF_REG_4, BPF_REG_1, OFFSET, VALUE)
> +#define PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_VALUE(PEV_FIELD, VALUE) \
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_64(BPF_REG_7, BPF_REG_6, offsetof(struct bpf_perf_event_value, PEV_FIELD), VALUE)
Wrap long lines? Try also running scripts/checkpatch.pl again these
files you are modifying.
> +#define PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_64(DST, SRC, OFFSET, VALUE) \
> + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, DST, SRC, OFFSET), \
> + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, DST, VALUE, 2), \
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, VALUE), \
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN()
> +
> +{
> + "check if regs contain expected values",
> + .insns = {
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_PTREG(r15, 1),
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_PTREG(r14, 2),
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_PTREG(r13, 3),
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_PTREG(r12, 4),
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_PTREG(rbp, 5),
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_PTREG(rbx, 6),
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_PTREG(r11, 7),
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_PTREG(r10, 8),
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_PTREG(r9, 9),
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_PTREG(r8, 10),
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_PTREG(rax, 11),
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_PTREG(rcx, 12),
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_PTREG(rdx, 13),
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_PTREG(rsi, 14),
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_PTREG(rdi, 15),
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_PTREG(orig_rax, 16),
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_PTREG(rip, 17),
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_PTREG(cs, 18),
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_PTREG(eflags, 19),
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_PTREG(rsp, 20),
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_PTREG(ss, 21),
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + },
> + .result = ACCEPT,
> + .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_PERF_EVENT,
> + .ctx_len = sizeof(struct bpf_perf_event_data),
> + .data_len = sizeof(struct bpf_perf_event_value),
> + .fill_helper = bpf_fill_perf_event_test_run_check,
> + .override_data_out_len = true,
> +},
> +{
> + "check if sample period and addr contain expected values",
> + .insns = {
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_EVENT(sample_period, 1),
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_EVENT(addr, 2),
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + },
> + .result = ACCEPT,
> + .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_PERF_EVENT,
> + .ctx_len = sizeof(struct bpf_perf_event_data),
> + .data_len = sizeof(struct bpf_perf_event_value),
> + .fill_helper = bpf_fill_perf_event_test_run_check,
> + .override_data_out_len = true,
> +},
> +{
> + "check if bpf_perf_prog_read_value returns expected data",
> + .insns = {
> + // allocate space for a struct bpf_perf_event_value
> + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_10),
> + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_6, -(int)sizeof(struct bpf_perf_event_value)),
> + // prepare parameters for bpf_perf_prog_read_value(ctx, struct bpf_perf_event_value*, u32)
> + // BPF_REG_1 already contains the context
> + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_6),
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_3, sizeof(struct bpf_perf_event_value)),
> + BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_perf_prog_read_value),
> + // check the return value
> + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + // check if the fields match the expected values
Use /* */ comments.
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_VALUE(counter, 1),
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_VALUE(enabled, 2),
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_VALUE(running, 3),
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + },
> + .result = ACCEPT,
> + .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_PERF_EVENT,
> + .ctx_len = sizeof(struct bpf_perf_event_data),
> + .data_len = sizeof(struct bpf_perf_event_value),
> + .fill_helper = bpf_fill_perf_event_test_run_check,
> + .override_data_out_len = true,
> +},
> +#undef PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_64
> +#undef PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_VALUE
> +#undef PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_CTX
> +#undef PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_EVENT
> +#undef PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_PTREG
> --
> 2.20.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists