kernel.git/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier, branch linux-5.12.y

bpf, selftests: Adjust few selftest outcomes wrt unreachable code

2021-06-30T12:46:59Z

[ Upstream commit 973377ffe8148180b2651825b92ae91988141b05 ] In almost all cases from test_verifier that have been changed in here, we've had an unreachable path with a load from a register which has an invalid address on purpose. This was basically to make sure that we never walk this path and to have the verifier complain if it would otherwise. Change it to match on the right error for unprivileged given we now test these paths under speculative execution. There's one case where we match on exact # of insns_processed. Due to the extra path, this will of course mismatch on unprivileged. Thus, restrict the test->insn_processed check to privileged-only. In one other case, we result in a 'pointer comparison prohibited' error. This is similarly due to verifying an 'invalid' branch where we end up with a value pointer on one side of the comparison. Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Reviewed-by: John Fastabend Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

bpf, selftests: Adjust few selftest result_unpriv outcomes

2021-06-16T10:05:03Z

[ Upstream commit 1bad6fd52be4ce12d207e2820ceb0f29ab31fc53 ] Given we don't need to simulate the speculative domain for registers with immediates anymore since the verifier uses direct imm-based rewrites instead of having to mask, we can also lift a few cases that were previously rejected. Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

bpf: Fix propagation of 32 bit unsigned bounds from 64 bit bounds

2021-05-14T08:53:05Z

[ Upstream commit 10bf4e83167cc68595b85fd73bb91e8f2c086e36 ] Similarly as b02709587ea3 ("bpf: Fix propagation of 32-bit signed bounds from 64-bit bounds."), we also need to fix the propagation of 32 bit unsigned bounds from 64 bit counterparts. That is, really only set the u32_{min,max}_value when /both/ {umin,umax}_value safely fit in 32 bit space. For example, the register with a umin_value == 1 does /not/ imply that u32_min_value is also equal to 1, since umax_value could be much larger than 32 bit subregister can hold, and thus u32_min_value is in the interval [0,1] instead. Before fix, invalid tracking result of R2_w=inv1: [...] 5: R0_w=inv1337 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R2_w=inv(id=0) R10=fp0 5: (35) if r2 >= 0x1 goto pc+1 [...] // goto path 7: R0=inv1337 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R2=inv(id=0,umin_value=1) R10=fp0 7: (b6) if w2 <= 0x1 goto pc+1 [...] // goto path 9: R0=inv1337 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R2=inv(id=0,smin_value=-9223372036854775807,smax_value=9223372032559808513,umin_value=1,umax_value=18446744069414584321,var_off=(0x1; 0xffffffff00000000),s32_min_value=1,s32_max_value=1,u32_max_value=1) R10=fp0 9: (bc) w2 = w2 10: R0=inv1337 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R2_w=inv1 R10=fp0 [...] After fix, correct tracking result of R2_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=1,var_off=(0x0; 0x1)): [...] 5: R0_w=inv1337 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R2_w=inv(id=0) R10=fp0 5: (35) if r2 >= 0x1 goto pc+1 [...] // goto path 7: R0=inv1337 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R2=inv(id=0,umin_value=1) R10=fp0 7: (b6) if w2 <= 0x1 goto pc+1 [...] // goto path 9: R0=inv1337 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R2=inv(id=0,smax_value=9223372032559808513,umax_value=18446744069414584321,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff00000001),s32_min_value=0,s32_max_value=1,u32_max_value=1) R10=fp0 9: (bc) w2 = w2 10: R0=inv1337 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R2_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=1,var_off=(0x0; 0x1)) R10=fp0 [...] Thus, same issue as in b02709587ea3 holds for unsigned subregister tracking. Also, align __reg64_bound_u32() similarly to __reg64_bound_s32() as done in b02709587ea3 to make them uniform again. Fixes: 3f50f132d840 ("bpf: Verifier, do explicit ALU32 bounds tracking") Reported-by: Manfred Paul (@_manfp) Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Reviewed-by: John Fastabend Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

bpf: Update selftests to reflect new error states

2021-04-16T21:52:15Z

Update various selftest error messages: * The 'Rx tried to sub from different maps, paths, or prohibited types' is reworked into more specific/differentiated error messages for better guidance. * The change into 'value -4294967168 makes map_value pointer be out of bounds' is due to moving the mixed bounds check into the speculation handling and thus occuring slightly later than above mentioned sanity check. * The change into 'math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value' is similarly due to register sanity check coming before the mixed bounds check. * The case of 'map access: known scalar += value_ptr from different maps' now loads fine given masks are the same from the different paths (despite max map value size being different). Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Reviewed-by: John Fastabend Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov

bpf, selftests: Fix up some test_verifier cases for unprivileged

2021-03-17T20:57:46Z

Fix up test_verifier error messages for the case where the original error message changed, or for the case where pointer alu errors differ between privileged and unprivileged tests. Also, add alternative tests for keeping coverage of the original verifier rejection error message (fp alu), and newly reject map_ptr += rX where rX == 0 given we now forbid alu on these types for unprivileged. All test_verifier cases pass after the change. The test case fixups were kept separate to ease backporting of core changes. Signed-off-by: Piotr Krysiuk Co-developed-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov

bpf: Explicitly zero-extend R0 after 32-bit cmpxchg

2021-03-05T03:06:03Z

As pointed out by Ilya and explained in the new comment, there's a discrepancy between x86 and BPF CMPXCHG semantics: BPF always loads the value from memory into r0, while x86 only does so when r0 and the value in memory are different. The same issue affects s390. At first this might sound like pure semantics, but it makes a real difference when the comparison is 32-bit, since the load will zero-extend r0/rax. The fix is to explicitly zero-extend rax after doing such a CMPXCHG. Since this problem affects multiple archs, this is done in the verifier by patching in a BPF_ZEXT_REG instruction after every 32-bit cmpxchg. Any archs that don't need such manual zero-extension can do a look-ahead with insn_is_zext to skip the unnecessary mov. Note this still goes on top of Ilya's patch: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210301154019.129110-1-iii@linux.ibm.com/T/#u Differences v5->v6[1]: - Moved is_cmpxchg_insn and ensured it can be safely re-used. Also renamed it and removed 'inline' to match the style of the is_*_function helpers. - Fixed up comments in verifier test (thanks for the careful review, Martin!) Differences v4->v5[1]: - Moved the logic entirely into opt_subreg_zext_lo32_rnd_hi32, thanks to Martin for suggesting this. Differences v3->v4[1]: - Moved the optimization against pointless zext into the correct place: opt_subreg_zext_lo32_rnd_hi32 is called _after_ fixup_bpf_calls. Differences v2->v3[1]: - Moved patching into fixup_bpf_calls (patch incoming to rename this function) - Added extra commentary on bpf_jit_needs_zext - Added check to avoid adding a pointless zext(r0) if there's already one there. Difference v1->v2[1]: Now solved centrally in the verifier instead of specifically for the x86 JIT. Thanks to Ilya and Daniel for the suggestions! [1] v5: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CA+i-1C3ytZz6FjcPmUg5s4L51pMQDxWcZNvM86w4RHZ_o2khwg@mail.gmail.com/T/#t v4: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CA+i-1C3ytZz6FjcPmUg5s4L51pMQDxWcZNvM86w4RHZ_o2khwg@mail.gmail.com/T/#t v3: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/08669818-c99d-0d30-e1db-53160c063611@iogearbox.net/T/#t v2: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/08669818-c99d-0d30-e1db-53160c063611@iogearbox.net/T/#t v1: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/d7ebaefb-bfd6-a441-3ff2-2fdfe699b1d2@iogearbox.net/T/#t Reported-by: Ilya Leoshkevich Fixes: 5ffa25502b5a ("bpf: Add instructions for atomic_[cmp]xchg") Signed-off-by: Brendan Jackman Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau Acked-by: Ilya Leoshkevich Tested-by: Ilya Leoshkevich Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov

selftests/bpf: Mask bpf_csum_diff() return value to 16 bits in test_verifier

2021-03-02T10:50:00Z

The verifier test labelled "valid read map access into a read-only array 2" calls the bpf_csum_diff() helper and checks its return value. However, architecture implementations of csum_partial() (which is what the helper uses) differ in whether they fold the return value to 16 bit or not. For example, x86 version has ... if (unlikely(odd)) { result = from32to16(result); result = ((result >> 8) & 0xff) | ((result & 0xff) << 8); } ... while generic lib/checksum.c does: result = from32to16(result); if (odd) result = ((result >> 8) & 0xff) | ((result & 0xff) << 8); This makes the helper return different values on different architectures, breaking the test on non-x86. To fix this, add an additional instruction to always mask the return value to 16 bits, and update the expected return value accordingly. Fixes: fb2abb73e575 ("bpf, selftest: test {rd, wr}only flags and direct value access") Signed-off-by: Yauheni Kaliuta Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210228103017.320240-1-yauheni.kaliuta@redhat.com

bpf, x86: Fix BPF_FETCH atomic and/or/xor with r0 as src

2021-02-22T17:03:11Z

This code generates a CMPXCHG loop in order to implement atomic_fetch bitwise operations. Because CMPXCHG is hard-coded to use rax (which holds the BPF r0 value), it saves the _real_ r0 value into the internal "ax" temporary register and restores it once the loop is complete. In the middle of the loop, the actual bitwise operation is performed using src_reg. The bug occurs when src_reg is r0: as described above, r0 has been clobbered and the real r0 value is in the ax register. Therefore, perform this operation on the ax register instead, when src_reg is r0. Fixes: 981f94c3e921 ("bpf: Add bitwise atomic instructions") Signed-off-by: Brendan Jackman Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: KP Singh Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210216125307.1406237-1-jackmanb@google.com

selftests/bpf: Fix endianness issues in atomic tests

2021-02-10T19:55:22Z

Atomic tests store a DW, but then load it back as a W from the same address. This doesn't work on big-endian systems, and since the point of those tests is not testing narrow loads, fix simply by loading a DW. Fixes: 98d666d05a1d ("bpf: Add tests for new BPF atomic operations") Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210210020713.77911-1-iii@linux.ibm.com

selftest/bpf: Verifier tests for var-off access

2021-02-10T18:44:19Z

Add tests for the new functionality - reading and writing to the stack through a variable-offset pointer. Signed-off-by: Andrei Matei Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210207011027.676572-4-andreimatei1@gmail.com