netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf v2 2/2] bpf/selftests: test that kernel rejects a TCP CC with an invalid license

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:   Fri, 26 Mar 2021 10:43:34 +0100
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf v2 2/2] bpf/selftests: test that kernel rejects a
 TCP CC with an invalid license

Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> writes:

> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 2:11 PM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> This adds a selftest to check that the verifier rejects a TCP CC struct_ops
>> with a non-GPL license.
>>
>> v2:
>> - Use a minimal struct_ops BPF program instead of rewriting bpf_dctcp's
>>   license in memory.
>> - Check for the verifier reject message instead of just the return code.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
>> ---
>>  .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_tcp_ca.c     | 44 +++++++++++++++++++
>>  .../selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_nogpltcp.c        | 19 ++++++++
>>  2 files changed, 63 insertions(+)
>>  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_nogpltcp.c
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_tcp_ca.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_tcp_ca.c
>> index 37c5494a0381..a09c716528e1 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_tcp_ca.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_tcp_ca.c
>> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
>>  #include <test_progs.h>
>>  #include "bpf_dctcp.skel.h"
>>  #include "bpf_cubic.skel.h"
>> +#include "bpf_nogpltcp.skel.h"
>
> total nit, but my eyes can't read "nogpltcp"... wouldn't
> "bpf_tcp_nogpl" be a bit easier?

Haha, yeah, good point - my eyes also just lump it into a blob...

>>
>>  #define min(a, b) ((a) < (b) ? (a) : (b))
>>
>> @@ -227,10 +228,53 @@ static void test_dctcp(void)
>>         bpf_dctcp__destroy(dctcp_skel);
>>  }
>>
>> +static char *err_str = NULL;
>> +static bool found = false;
>> +
>> +static int libbpf_debug_print(enum libbpf_print_level level,
>> +                             const char *format, va_list args)
>> +{
>> +       char *log_buf;
>> +
>> +       if (level != LIBBPF_WARN ||
>> +           strcmp(format, "libbpf: \n%s\n")) {
>> +               vprintf(format, args);
>> +               return 0;
>> +       }
>> +
>> +       log_buf = va_arg(args, char *);
>> +       if (!log_buf)
>> +               goto out;
>> +       if (err_str && strstr(log_buf, err_str) != NULL)
>> +               found = true;
>> +out:
>> +       printf(format, log_buf);
>> +       return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void test_invalid_license(void)
>> +{
>> +       libbpf_print_fn_t old_print_fn = NULL;
>> +       struct bpf_nogpltcp *skel;
>> +
>> +       err_str = "struct ops programs must have a GPL compatible license";
>> +       old_print_fn = libbpf_set_print(libbpf_debug_print);
>> +
>> +       skel = bpf_nogpltcp__open_and_load();
>> +       if (CHECK(skel, "bpf_nogplgtcp__open_and_load()", "didn't fail\n"))
>
> ASSERT_OK_PTR()
>
>> +               bpf_nogpltcp__destroy(skel);
>
> you should destroy unconditionally
>
>> +
>> +       CHECK(!found, "errmsg check", "expected string '%s'", err_str);
>
> ASSERT_EQ(found, true, "expected_err_msg");
>
> I can never be sure which way CHECK() is checking

Ah, thanks! I always get confused about CHECK() as well! Maybe it should
be renamed to ASSERT()? But that would require flipping all the if()
statements around them as well :/

-Toke