netdev - [RFC PATCH bpf-next 06/12] selftests/bpf: Adjust test that does not allow refcounted node in rbtree

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: <20250418224652.105998-7-martin.lau@linux.dev>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2025 15:46:44 -0700
From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>
To: bpf@...r.kernel.org
Cc: 'Alexei Starovoitov ' <ast@...nel.org>,
	'Andrii Nakryiko ' <andrii@...nel.org>,
	'Daniel Borkmann ' <daniel@...earbox.net>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-team@...a.com,
	'Amery Hung ' <ameryhung@...il.com>
Subject: [RFC PATCH bpf-next 06/12] selftests/bpf: Adjust test that does not allow refcounted node in rbtree_remove

From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...nel.org>

rbtree_remove now allows refcounted node now. The
rbtree_api_remove_unadded_node test needs to be adjusted.

First change, it does not expect a verifier's error now.

Second change, the test now expects bpf_rbtree_remove(&groot, &m->node)
to return NULL. The test uses __retval(0) to ensure this NULL
return value.

Some of the "only take non-owning..." failure messages are changed also.

Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...nel.org>
---
 .../testing/selftests/bpf/progs/rbtree_fail.c | 26 ++++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/rbtree_fail.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/rbtree_fail.c
index 528122320471..b2e24f018a3f 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/rbtree_fail.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/rbtree_fail.c
@@ -69,11 +69,11 @@ long rbtree_api_nolock_first(void *ctx)
 }
 
 SEC("?tc")
-__failure __msg("bpf_rbtree_remove can only take non-owning bpf_rb_node pointer")
+__retval(0)
 long rbtree_api_remove_unadded_node(void *ctx)
 {
 	struct node_data *n, *m;
-	struct bpf_rb_node *res;
+	struct bpf_rb_node *res_n, *res_m;
 
 	n = bpf_obj_new(typeof(*n));
 	if (!n)
@@ -89,18 +89,20 @@ long rbtree_api_remove_unadded_node(void *ctx)
 	bpf_rbtree_add(&groot, &n->node, less);
 
 	/* This remove should pass verifier */
-	res = bpf_rbtree_remove(&groot, &n->node);
-	n = container_of(res, struct node_data, node);
+	res_n = bpf_rbtree_remove(&groot, &n->node);
 
 	/* This remove shouldn't, m isn't in an rbtree */
-	res = bpf_rbtree_remove(&groot, &m->node);
-	m = container_of(res, struct node_data, node);
+	res_m = bpf_rbtree_remove(&groot, &m->node);
 	bpf_spin_unlock(&glock);
 
-	if (n)
-		bpf_obj_drop(n);
-	if (m)
-		bpf_obj_drop(m);
+	bpf_obj_drop(m);
+	if (res_n)
+		bpf_obj_drop(container_of(res_n, struct node_data, node));
+	if (res_m) {
+		bpf_obj_drop(container_of(res_m, struct node_data, node));
+		return 2;
+	}
+
 	return 0;
 }
 
@@ -178,7 +180,7 @@ long rbtree_api_use_unchecked_remove_retval(void *ctx)
 }
 
 SEC("?tc")
-__failure __msg("bpf_rbtree_remove can only take non-owning bpf_rb_node pointer")
+__failure __msg("bpf_rbtree_remove can only take non-owning or refcounted bpf_rb_node pointer")
 long rbtree_api_add_release_unlock_escape(void *ctx)
 {
 	struct node_data *n;
@@ -202,7 +204,7 @@ long rbtree_api_add_release_unlock_escape(void *ctx)
 }
 
 SEC("?tc")
-__failure __msg("bpf_rbtree_remove can only take non-owning bpf_rb_node pointer")
+__failure __msg("bpf_rbtree_remove can only take non-owning or refcounted bpf_rb_node pointer")
 long rbtree_api_first_release_unlock_escape(void *ctx)
 {
 	struct bpf_rb_node *res;
-- 
2.47.1