netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/3] A couple of small refactorings of BPF program call sites

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 16 Sep 2022 22:59:15 +0200
From:   Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc:     Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/3] A couple of small refactorings of BPF
 program call sites

On Fri, 16 Sept 2022 at 22:58, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote:
>
> On 9/5/22 9:33 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> > Stanislav suggested[0] that these small refactorings could be split out from the
> > XDP queueing RFC series and merged separately. The first change is a small
> > repacking of struct softnet_data, the others change the BPF call sites to
> > support full 64-bit values as arguments to bpf_redirect_map() and as the return
> > value of a BPF program, relying on the fact that BPF registers are always 64-bit
> > wide to maintain backwards compatibility.
>
> Looks like might still be issues on s390 [0] around retval checking, e.g.:
>
>    [...]
>    #122     pe_preserve_elems:FAIL
>    test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:parse_cpu_mask_file 0 nsec
>    test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
>    test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:skel_attach 0 nsec
>    test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:open /proc/self/comm 0 nsec
>    test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:task rename 0 nsec
>    test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:check_count 0 nsec
>    test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:check_on_cpu 0 nsec
>    test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:test_run should fail for too small ctx 0 nsec
>    test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:test_run 0 nsec
>    test_raw_tp_test_run:FAIL:check_retval unexpected check_retval: actual 0 != expected 26796
>    test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:test_run_opts 0 nsec
>    test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:check_on_cpu 0 nsec
>    test_raw_tp_test_run:FAIL:check_retval unexpected check_retval: actual 0 != expected 26796
>    test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:test_run_opts 0 nsec
>    test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:check_on_cpu 0 nsec
>    test_raw_tp_test_run:FAIL:check_retval unexpected check_retval: actual 0 != expected 26796
>    test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:test_run_opts should fail with ENXIO 0 nsec
>    test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:test_run_opts_fail 0 nsec
>    test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:test_run_opts should fail with EINVAL 0 nsec
>    test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:test_run_opts_fail 0 nsec
>    [...]
>

Thanks, I'll take a look.

> Thanks,
> Daniel
>
>    [0] https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/3059535631/jobs/4939404438