netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next] selftest/bpf: check invalid length in test_xdp_update

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: <Yf1nxMWEWy4DSwgN@lore-desk>
Date:   Fri, 4 Feb 2022 18:52:04 +0100
From:   Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo.bianconi@...hat.com>
To:     Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
Cc:     Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, brouer@...hat.com,
        toke@...hat.com, andrii@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] selftest/bpf: check invalid length in
 test_xdp_update_frags

> 
> 
> On 2/4/22 5:58 AM, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> > Update test_xdp_update_frags adding a test for a buffer size
> > set to (MAX_SKB_FRAGS + 2) * PAGE_SIZE. The kernel is supposed
> > to return -ENOMEM.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>
> > ---
> >   .../bpf/prog_tests/xdp_adjust_frags.c         | 37 ++++++++++++++++++-
> >   1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_adjust_frags.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_adjust_frags.c
> > index 134d0ac32f59..61d5b585eb15 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_adjust_frags.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_adjust_frags.c
> > @@ -5,11 +5,12 @@
> >   void test_xdp_update_frags(void)
> >   {
> >   	const char *file = "./test_xdp_update_frags.o";
> > +	int err, prog_fd, max_skb_frags, buf_size, num;
> >   	struct bpf_program *prog;
> >   	struct bpf_object *obj;
> > -	int err, prog_fd;
> >   	__u32 *offset;
> >   	__u8 *buf;
> > +	FILE *f;
> >   	LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_test_run_opts, topts);
> >   	obj = bpf_object__open(file);
> > @@ -99,6 +100,40 @@ void test_xdp_update_frags(void)
> >   	ASSERT_EQ(buf[7621], 0xbb, "xdp_update_frag buf[7621]");
> >   	free(buf);
> > +
> > +	/* test_xdp_update_frags: unsupported buffer size */
> > +	f = fopen("/proc/sys/net/core/max_skb_frags", "r");
> > +	if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(f, "max_skb_frag file pointer"))
> > +		goto out;
> 
> In kernel, the nr_frags checking is against MAX_SKB_FRAGS,
> but if /proc/sys/net/core/max_skb_flags is 2 or more less
> than MAX_SKB_FRAGS, the test won't fail, right?

yes, you are right. Should we use the same definition used in
include/linux/skbuff.h instead? Something like:

if (65536 / page_size + 1 < 16)
	max_skb_flags = 16;
else
	max_skb_flags = 65536/page_size + 1;

Regards,
Lorenzo

> 
> > +
> > +	num = fscanf(f, "%d", &max_skb_frags);
> > +	fclose(f);
> > +
> > +	if (!ASSERT_EQ(num, 1, "max_skb_frags read failed"))
> > +		goto out;
> > +
> > +	/* xdp_buff linear area size is always set to 4096 in the
> > +	 * bpf_prog_test_run_xdp routine.
> > +	 */
> > +	buf_size = 4096 + (max_skb_frags + 1) * sysconf(_SC_PAGE_SIZE);
> > +	buf = malloc(buf_size);
> > +	if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(buf, "alloc buf"))
> > +		goto out;
> > +
> > +	memset(buf, 0, buf_size);
> > +	offset = (__u32 *)buf;
> > +	*offset = 16;
> > +	buf[*offset] = 0xaa;
> > +	buf[*offset + 15] = 0xaa;
> > +
> > +	topts.data_in = buf;
> > +	topts.data_out = buf;
> > +	topts.data_size_in = buf_size;
> > +	topts.data_size_out = buf_size;
> > +
> > +	err = bpf_prog_test_run_opts(prog_fd, &topts);
> > +	ASSERT_EQ(err, -ENOMEM, "unsupported buffer size");
> > +	free(buf);
> >   out:
> >   	bpf_object__close(obj);
> >   }
> 

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)