netdev - [RFC PATCH 02/14] bpf/tests: add BPF_MOV tests for zero and sign extension

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: <20210726081738.1833704-3-johan.almbladh@anyfinetworks.com>
Date:   Mon, 26 Jul 2021 10:17:26 +0200
From:   Johan Almbladh <johan.almbladh@...finetworks.com>
To:     ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org
Cc:     kafai@...com, songliubraving@...com, yhs@...com,
        john.fastabend@...il.com, kpsingh@...nel.org,
        Tony.Ambardar@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        Johan Almbladh <johan.almbladh@...finetworks.com>
Subject: [RFC PATCH 02/14] bpf/tests: add BPF_MOV tests for zero and sign extension

Tests for ALU32 and ALU64 MOV with different sizes of the immediate
value. Depending on the immediate field width of the native CPU
instructions, a JIT may generate code differently depending on the
immediate value. Test that zero or sign extension is performed as
expected. Mainly for JIT testing.

Signed-off-by: Johan Almbladh <johan.almbladh@...finetworks.com>
---
 lib/test_bpf.c | 84 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 84 insertions(+)

diff --git a/lib/test_bpf.c b/lib/test_bpf.c
index bfac033db590..9e232acddce8 100644
--- a/lib/test_bpf.c
+++ b/lib/test_bpf.c
@@ -2360,6 +2360,48 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
 		{ },
 		{ { 0, 0x1 } },
 	},
+	{
+		"ALU_MOV_K: small negative",
+		.u.insns_int = {
+			BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_MOV, R0, -123),
+			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+		},
+		INTERNAL,
+		{ },
+		{ { 0, -123 } }
+	},
+	{
+		"ALU_MOV_K: small negative zero extension",
+		.u.insns_int = {
+			BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_MOV, R0, -123),
+			BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_RSH, R0, 32),
+			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+		},
+		INTERNAL,
+		{ },
+		{ { 0, 0 } }
+	},
+	{
+		"ALU_MOV_K: large negative",
+		.u.insns_int = {
+			BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_MOV, R0, -123456789),
+			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+		},
+		INTERNAL,
+		{ },
+		{ { 0, -123456789 } }
+	},
+	{
+		"ALU_MOV_K: large negative zero extension",
+		.u.insns_int = {
+			BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_MOV, R0, -123456789),
+			BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_RSH, R0, 32),
+			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+		},
+		INTERNAL,
+		{ },
+		{ { 0, 0 } }
+	},
 	{
 		"ALU64_MOV_K: dst = 2",
 		.u.insns_int = {
@@ -2412,6 +2454,48 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
 		{ },
 		{ { 0, 0x1 } },
 	},
+	{
+		"ALU64_MOV_K: small negative",
+		.u.insns_int = {
+			BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_MOV, R0, -123),
+			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+		},
+		INTERNAL,
+		{ },
+		{ { 0, -123 } }
+	},
+	{
+		"ALU64_MOV_K: small negative sign extension",
+		.u.insns_int = {
+			BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_MOV, R0, -123),
+			BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_RSH, R0, 32),
+			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+		},
+		INTERNAL,
+		{ },
+		{ { 0, 0xffffffff } }
+	},
+	{
+		"ALU64_MOV_K: large negative",
+		.u.insns_int = {
+			BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_MOV, R0, -123456789),
+			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+		},
+		INTERNAL,
+		{ },
+		{ { 0, -123456789 } }
+	},
+	{
+		"ALU64_MOV_K: large negative sign extension",
+		.u.insns_int = {
+			BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_MOV, R0, -123456789),
+			BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_RSH, R0, 32),
+			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+		},
+		INTERNAL,
+		{ },
+		{ { 0, 0xffffffff } }
+	},
 	/* BPF_ALU | BPF_ADD | BPF_X */
 	{
 		"ALU_ADD_X: 1 + 2 = 3",
-- 
2.25.1