[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPhsuW6qXqY9u488xVLBis0JMybyfp6kubmN8GEMPH6oVcOX0A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2019 22:09:26 -0700
From: Song Liu <liu.song.a23@...il.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/4] bpf: introduce verifier internal test flag
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 2:59 AM Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Introduce BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ flag to stress test parentage chain
> and state pruning.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Acked-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
> ---
> include/linux/bpf_verifier.h | 1 +
> include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 3 +++
> kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 1 +
> kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 5 ++++-
> 4 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
> index 5fe99f322b1c..26a6d58ca78c 100644
> --- a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
> +++ b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
> @@ -355,6 +355,7 @@ struct bpf_verifier_env {
> struct bpf_verifier_stack_elem *head; /* stack of verifier states to be processed */
> int stack_size; /* number of states to be processed */
> bool strict_alignment; /* perform strict pointer alignment checks */
> + bool test_state_freq; /* test verifier with different pruning frequency */
> struct bpf_verifier_state *cur_state; /* current verifier state */
> struct bpf_verifier_state_list **explored_states; /* search pruning optimization */
> struct bpf_verifier_state_list *free_list;
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> index b5889257cc33..5d2fb183ee2d 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> @@ -285,6 +285,9 @@ enum bpf_attach_type {
> */
> #define BPF_F_TEST_RND_HI32 (1U << 2)
>
> +/* The verifier internal test flag. Behavior is undefined */
> +#define BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ (1U << 3)
> +
> /* When BPF ldimm64's insn[0].src_reg != 0 then this can have
> * two extensions:
> *
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> index c0f62fd67c6b..ca60eafa6922 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> @@ -1629,6 +1629,7 @@ static int bpf_prog_load(union bpf_attr *attr, union bpf_attr __user *uattr)
>
> if (attr->prog_flags & ~(BPF_F_STRICT_ALIGNMENT |
> BPF_F_ANY_ALIGNMENT |
> + BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ |
> BPF_F_TEST_RND_HI32))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index 16d66bd7af09..3fb50757e812 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -7223,7 +7223,7 @@ static int is_state_visited(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx)
> struct bpf_verifier_state_list *sl, **pprev;
> struct bpf_verifier_state *cur = env->cur_state, *new;
> int i, j, err, states_cnt = 0;
> - bool add_new_state = false;
> + bool add_new_state = env->test_state_freq ? true : false;
>
> cur->last_insn_idx = env->prev_insn_idx;
> if (!env->insn_aux_data[insn_idx].prune_point)
> @@ -9263,6 +9263,9 @@ int bpf_check(struct bpf_prog **prog, union bpf_attr *attr,
>
> env->allow_ptr_leaks = is_priv;
>
> + if (is_priv)
> + env->test_state_freq = attr->prog_flags & BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ;
> +
> ret = replace_map_fd_with_map_ptr(env);
> if (ret < 0)
> goto skip_full_check;
> --
> 2.20.0
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists