netdev - Re: [PATCH 10/11] selftests/bpf: Add verifier test for d

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]
Message-ID: <20200619133249.GK2465907@krava>
Date:   Fri, 19 Jun 2020 15:32:49 +0200
From:   Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        David Miller <davem@...hat.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Wenbo Zhang <ethercflow@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
        Brendan Gregg <bgregg@...flix.com>,
        Florent Revest <revest@...omium.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/11] selftests/bpf: Add verifier test for d_path helper

On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 09:38:56PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 3:06 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Adding verifier test for attaching tracing program and
> > calling d_path helper from within and testing that it's
> > allowed for dentry_open function and denied for 'd_path'
> > function with appropriate error.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
> > ---
> >  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c   | 13 ++++++-
> >  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/d_path.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/d_path.c
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> > index 78a6bae56ea6..3cce3dc766a2 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> > @@ -114,6 +114,7 @@ struct bpf_test {
> >                 bpf_testdata_struct_t retvals[MAX_TEST_RUNS];
> >         };
> >         enum bpf_attach_type expected_attach_type;
> > +       const char *kfunc;
> >  };
> >
> >  /* Note we want this to be 64 bit aligned so that the end of our array is
> > @@ -984,8 +985,18 @@ static void do_test_single(struct bpf_test *test, bool unpriv,
> >                 attr.log_level = 4;
> >         attr.prog_flags = pflags;
> >
> > +       if (prog_type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING && test->kfunc) {
> > +               attr.attach_btf_id = libbpf_find_vmlinux_btf_id(test->kfunc,
> > +                                               attr.expected_attach_type);
> 
> if (!attr.attach_btf_id)
>   emit more meaningful error, than later during load?

ok

> 
> > +       }
> > +
> >         fd_prog = bpf_load_program_xattr(&attr, bpf_vlog, sizeof(bpf_vlog));
> > -       if (fd_prog < 0 && !bpf_probe_prog_type(prog_type, 0)) {
> > +
> > +       /* BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING requires more setup and
> > +        * bpf_probe_prog_type won't give correct answer
> > +        */
> > +       if (fd_prog < 0 && (prog_type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING) &&
> 
> nit: () are redundant

ok

> 
> > +           !bpf_probe_prog_type(prog_type, 0)) {
> >                 printf("SKIP (unsupported program type %d)\n", prog_type);
> >                 skips++;
> >                 goto close_fds;
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/d_path.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/d_path.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..e08181abc056
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/d_path.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
> > +{
> > +       "d_path accept",
> > +       .insns = {
> > +       BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_1, 0),
> > +       BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
> > +       BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8),
> > +       BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_6, 0),
> > +       BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_6, 0),
> > +       BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_3, 8),
> > +       BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, BPF_FUNC_d_path),
> > +       BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
> > +       BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> > +       },
> > +       .errstr = "R0 max value is outside of the array range",
> > +       .result = ACCEPT,
> 
> accept with error string expected?

oops, probably lefover, will check

thanks,
jirka

> 
> 
> > +       .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING,
> > +       .expected_attach_type = BPF_TRACE_FENTRY,
> > +       .kfunc = "dentry_open",
> > +},
> > +{
> > +       "d_path reject",
> > +       .insns = {
> > +       BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_1, 0),
> > +       BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
> > +       BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8),
> > +       BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_6, 0),
> > +       BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_6, 0),
> > +       BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_3, 8),
> > +       BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, BPF_FUNC_d_path),
> > +       BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
> > +       BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> > +       },
> > +       .errstr = "helper call is not allowed in probe",
> > +       .result = REJECT,
> > +       .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING,
> > +       .expected_attach_type = BPF_TRACE_FENTRY,
> > +       .kfunc = "d_path",
> > +},
> > --
> > 2.25.4
> >
>