BMC/Intel-BMC/linux.git/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c, branch master

bpf: fix byte order test in test_verifier

2017-08-04T23:09:06+00:00

We really must check with #if __BYTE_ORDER == XYZ instead of just presence of #ifdef __LITTLE_ENDIAN. I noticed that when actually running this on big endian machine, the latter test resolves to true for user space, same for #ifdef __BIG_ENDIAN. E.g., looking at endian.h from libc, both are also defined there, so we really must test this against __BYTE_ORDER instead for proper insns selection. For the kernel, such checks are fine though e.g. see 13da9e200fe4 ("Revert "endian: #define __BYTE_ORDER"") and 415586c9e6d3 ("UAPI: fix endianness conditionals in M32R's asm/stat.h") for some more context, but not for user space. Lets also make sure to properly include endian.h. After that, suite passes for me: ./test_verifier: ELF 64-bit MSB executable, [...] Linux foo 4.13.0-rc3+ #4 SMP Fri Aug 4 06:59:30 EDT 2017 s390x s390x s390x GNU/Linux Before fix: Summary: 505 PASSED, 11 FAILED After fix: Summary: 516 PASSED, 0 FAILED Fixes: 18f3d6be6be1 ("selftests/bpf: Add test cases to test narrower ctx field loads") Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Yonghong Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

selftests/bpf: subtraction bounds test

2017-07-24T21:02:55+00:00

There is a bug in the verifier's handling of BPF_SUB: [a,b] - [c,d] yields was [a-c, b-d] rather than the correct [a-d, b-c]. So here is a test which, with the bogus handling, will produce ranges of [0,0] and thus allowed accesses; whereas the correct handling will give a range of [-255, 255] (and hence the right-shift will give a range of [0, 255]) and the accesses will be rejected. Signed-off-by: Edward Cree Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

bpf: more tests for mixed signed and unsigned bounds checks

2017-07-20T22:20:27+00:00

Add a couple of more test cases to BPF selftests that are related to mixed signed and unsigned checks. Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

bpf: add test for mixed signed and unsigned bounds checks

2017-07-20T22:20:27+00:00

These failed due to a bug in verifier bounds handling. Signed-off-by: Edward Cree Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

bpf: fix up test cases with mixed signed/unsigned bounds

2017-07-20T22:20:27+00:00

Fix the few existing test cases that used mixed signed/unsigned bounds and switch them only to one flavor. Reason why we need this is that proper boundaries cannot be derived from mixed tests. Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

bpf: allow to specify log level and reduce it for test_verifier

2017-07-20T22:20:27+00:00

For the test_verifier case, it's quite hard to parse log level 2 to figure out what's causing an issue when used to log level 1. We do want to use bpf_verify_program() in order to simulate some of the tests with strict alignment. So just add an argument to pass the level and put it to 1 for test_verifier. Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

bpf: add various test cases for verifier selftest

2017-07-03T09:22:52+00:00

Add couple of verifier test cases for x|imm += pkt_ptr, including the imm += x extension. Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: John Fastabend Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

Merge git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/net

2017-06-30T16:43:08+00:00

A set of overlapping changes in macvlan and the rocker driver, nothing serious. Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

bpf: prevent leaking pointer via xadd on unpriviledged

2017-06-29T19:44:34+00:00

Leaking kernel addresses on unpriviledged is generally disallowed, for example, verifier rejects the following: 0: (b7) r0 = 0 1: (18) r2 = 0xffff897e82304400 3: (7b) *(u64 *)(r1 +48) = r2 R2 leaks addr into ctx Doing pointer arithmetic on them is also forbidden, so that they don't turn into unknown value and then get leaked out. However, there's xadd as a special case, where we don't check the src reg for being a pointer register, e.g. the following will pass: 0: (b7) r0 = 0 1: (7b) *(u64 *)(r1 +48) = r0 2: (18) r2 = 0xffff897e82304400 ; map 4: (db) lock *(u64 *)(r1 +48) += r2 5: (95) exit We could store the pointer into skb->cb, loose the type context, and then read it out from there again to leak it eventually out of a map value. Or more easily in a different variant, too: 0: (bf) r6 = r1 1: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 0 2: (bf) r2 = r10 3: (07) r2 += -8 4: (18) r1 = 0x0 6: (85) call bpf_map_lookup_elem#1 7: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+3 R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R6=ctx R10=fp 8: (b7) r3 = 0 9: (7b) *(u64 *)(r0 +0) = r3 10: (db) lock *(u64 *)(r0 +0) += r6 11: (b7) r0 = 0 12: (95) exit from 7 to 11: R0=inv,min_value=0,max_value=0 R6=ctx R10=fp 11: (b7) r0 = 0 12: (95) exit Prevent this by checking xadd src reg for pointer types. Also add a couple of test cases related to this. Fixes: 1be7f75d1668 ("bpf: enable non-root eBPF programs") Fixes: 17a5267067f3 ("bpf: verifier (add verifier core)") Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau Acked-by: Edward Cree Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

selftests/bpf: Add test cases to test narrower ctx field loads

2017-06-14T18:56:25+00:00

Add test cases in test_verifier and test_progs. Negative tests are added in test_verifier as well. The test in test_progs will compare the value of narrower ctx field load result vs. the masked value of normal full-field load result, and will fail if they are not the same. Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song Signed-off-by: David S. Miller