On Wed, 2023-11-01 at 08:33 +0100, Hao Sun wrote:
Add a test to check if the verifier correctly reason about the sign of an immediate spilled to stack by BPF_ST instruction.
Signed-off-by: Hao Sun sunhao.th@gmail.com
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bpf_st_mem.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bpf_st_mem.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bpf_st_mem.c index 3af2501082b2..0ba23807c46c 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bpf_st_mem.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bpf_st_mem.c @@ -65,3 +65,35 @@ .expected_attach_type = BPF_SK_LOOKUP, .runs = -1, }, +{
- "BPF_ST_MEM stack imm sign",
- /* Check if verifier correctly reasons about sign of an
* immediate spilled to stack by BPF_ST instruction.** fp[-8] = -44;* r0 = fp[-8];* if r0 s< 0 goto ret0;* r0 = -1;* exit;* ret0:* r0 = 0;* exit;*/- .insns = {
- BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, -44),
- BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_10, -8),
- BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSLT, BPF_REG_0, 0, 2),
- BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, -1),
- BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
- BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
- BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
- },
- /* Use prog type that requires return value in range [0, 1] */
- .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SK_LOOKUP,
- .expected_attach_type = BPF_SK_LOOKUP,
- .result = VERBOSE_ACCEPT,
- .runs = -1,
- .errstr = "0: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = -44 ; R10=fp0 fp-8_w=-44\
- 2: (c5) if r0 s< 0x0 goto pc+2\
- 2: R0_w=-44",
+},
Please note that this test case fails on CI [0], full log below:
2023-11-01T07:49:51.2841702Z #116/p BPF_ST_MEM stack imm sign FAIL 2023-11-01T07:49:51.2843456Z Unexpected verifier log! 2023-11-01T07:49:51.2844968Z EXP: 2: R0_w=-44 2023-11-01T07:49:51.2845583Z RES: 2023-11-01T07:49:51.2846693Z func#0 @0 2023-11-01T07:49:51.2848932Z 0: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0 2023-11-01T07:49:51.2853045Z 0: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = -44 ; R10=fp0 fp-8_w=-44 2023-11-01T07:49:51.2857391Z 1: (79) r0 = *(u64 *)(r10 -8) ; R0_w=-44 R10=fp0 fp-8_w=-44 2023-11-01T07:49:51.2859127Z 2: (c5) if r0 s< 0x0 goto pc+2 2023-11-01T07:49:51.2862943Z mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 2 first_idx 0 subseq_idx -1 2023-11-01T07:49:51.2867511Z mark_precise: frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 1: (79) r0 = *(u64 *)(r10 -8) 2023-11-01T07:49:51.2872217Z mark_precise: frame0: regs= stack=-8 before 0: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = -44 2023-11-01T07:49:51.2872816Z 5: R0_w=-44 2023-11-01T07:49:51.2875653Z 5: (b7) r0 = 0 ; R0_w=0 2023-11-01T07:49:51.2876493Z 6: (95) exit
I suspect that after recent logging fixes instruction number printed after jump changed and that's why test case no longer passes.
Note: you can check CI status for submitted patch-sets using link [1].
[0] https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/6717053909/job/1825433086... [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/