[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190823055215.2658669-5-ast@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 22:52:15 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
To: <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: <daniel@...earbox.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<bpf@...r.kernel.org>, <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next 4/4] selftests/bpf: add precision tracking test
Copy-paste of existing test
"calls: cross frame pruning - liveness propagation"
but ran with different parentage chain heuristic
which stresses different path in precision tracking logic.
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
---
This test will be failing without this fix
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1151172/
---
.../testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/precise.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/precise.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/precise.c
index a20953c23721..a455a4a71f11 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/precise.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/precise.c
@@ -115,3 +115,28 @@
regs=300 stack=0 before 17\
parent already had regs=0 stack=0 marks",
},
+{
+ "precise: cross frame pruning",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, BPF_FUNC_get_prandom_u32),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_8, 0),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_8, 1),
+ BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, BPF_FUNC_get_prandom_u32),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_9, 0),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_9, 1),
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0),
+ BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 1, 0, 4),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_8, 1, 1),
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2, 0),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_1, 0, 0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
+ .flags = BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ,
+ .errstr = "!read_ok",
+ .result = REJECT,
+},
--
2.20.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists