kernel/linux.git/tools/testing/selftests/bpf, branch v4.14.84

selftests/bpf: fix a typo in map in map test

2018-09-19T20:43:38+00:00

[ Upstream commit 0069fb854364da79fd99236ea620affc8e1152d5 ] Commit fbeb1603bf4e ("bpf: verifier: MOV64 don't mark dst reg unbounded") revealed a typo in commit fb30d4b71214 ("bpf: Add tests for map-in-map"): BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_0, 0) was used instead of BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0). I've noticed the problem by running bpf kselftests. Fixes: fb30d4b71214 ("bpf: Add tests for map-in-map") Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin Cc: Martin KaFai Lau Cc: Arthur Fabre Cc: Daniel Borkmann Cc: Alexei Starovoitov Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

selftests: bpf: notification about privilege required to run test_kmod.sh testing script

2018-08-24T11:09:04+00:00

[ Upstream commit 81e167c2a216e7b54e6add9d2badcda267fe33b1 ] The test_kmod.sh script require root privilege for the successful execution of the test. This patch is to notify the user about the privilege the script demands for the successful execution of the test. Signed-off-by: Jeffrin Jose T (Rajagiri SET) Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

selftests/bpf/test_maps: exit child process without error in ENOMEM case

2018-05-30T05:52:01+00:00

[ Upstream commit 80475c48c6a8a65171e035e0915dc7996b5a0a65 ] test_maps contains a series of stress tests, and previously it will break the rest tests when it failed to alloc memory. ----------------------- Failed to create hashmap key=8 value=262144 'Cannot allocate memory' Failed to create hashmap key=16 value=262144 'Cannot allocate memory' Failed to create hashmap key=8 value=262144 'Cannot allocate memory' Failed to create hashmap key=8 value=262144 'Cannot allocate memory' test_maps: test_maps.c:955: run_parallel: Assertion `status == 0' failed. Aborted not ok 1..3 selftests: test_maps [FAIL] ----------------------- after this patch, the rest tests will be continue when it occurs an ENOMEM failure CC: Alexei Starovoitov CC: Philip Li Suggested-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Li Zhijian Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: test_maps: cleanup sockmaps when test ends

2018-04-26T09:02:10+00:00

[ Upstream commit 783687810e986a15ffbf86c516a1a48ff37f38f7 ] Bug: BPF programs and maps related to sockmaps test exist in memory even after test_maps ends. This patch fixes it as a short term workaround (sockmap kernel side needs real fixing) by empyting sockmaps when test ends. Fixes: 6f6d33f3b3d0f ("bpf: selftests add sockmap tests") Signed-off-by: Prashant Bhole [ daniel: Note on workaround. ] Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: allow xadd only on aligned memory

2018-03-11T15:23:22+00:00

[ upstream commit ca36960211eb228bcbc7aaebfa0d027368a94c60 ] The requirements around atomic_add() / atomic64_add() resp. their JIT implementations differ across architectures. E.g. while x86_64 seems just fine with BPF's xadd on unaligned memory, on arm64 it triggers via interpreter but also JIT the following crash: [ 830.864985] Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address ffff8097d7ed6703 [...] [ 830.916161] Internal error: Oops: 96000021 [#1] SMP [ 830.984755] CPU: 37 PID: 2788 Comm: test_verifier Not tainted 4.16.0-rc2+ #8 [ 830.991790] Hardware name: Huawei TaiShan 2280 /BC11SPCD, BIOS 1.29 07/17/2017 [ 830.998998] pstate: 80400005 (Nzcv daif +PAN -UAO) [ 831.003793] pc : __ll_sc_atomic_add+0x4/0x18 [ 831.008055] lr : ___bpf_prog_run+0x1198/0x1588 [ 831.012485] sp : ffff00001ccabc20 [ 831.015786] x29: ffff00001ccabc20 x28: ffff8017d56a0f00 [ 831.021087] x27: 0000000000000001 x26: 0000000000000000 [ 831.026387] x25: 000000c168d9db98 x24: 0000000000000000 [ 831.031686] x23: ffff000008203878 x22: ffff000009488000 [ 831.036986] x21: ffff000008b14e28 x20: ffff00001ccabcb0 [ 831.042286] x19: ffff0000097b5080 x18: 0000000000000a03 [ 831.047585] x17: 0000000000000000 x16: 0000000000000000 [ 831.052885] x15: 0000ffffaeca8000 x14: 0000000000000000 [ 831.058184] x13: 0000000000000000 x12: 0000000000000000 [ 831.063484] x11: 0000000000000001 x10: 0000000000000000 [ 831.068783] x9 : 0000000000000000 x8 : 0000000000000000 [ 831.074083] x7 : 0000000000000000 x6 : 000580d428000000 [ 831.079383] x5 : 0000000000000018 x4 : 0000000000000000 [ 831.084682] x3 : ffff00001ccabcb0 x2 : 0000000000000001 [ 831.089982] x1 : ffff8097d7ed6703 x0 : 0000000000000001 [ 831.095282] Process test_verifier (pid: 2788, stack limit = 0x0000000018370044) [ 831.102577] Call trace: [ 831.105012] __ll_sc_atomic_add+0x4/0x18 [ 831.108923] __bpf_prog_run32+0x4c/0x70 [ 831.112748] bpf_test_run+0x78/0xf8 [ 831.116224] bpf_prog_test_run_xdp+0xb4/0x120 [ 831.120567] SyS_bpf+0x77c/0x1110 [ 831.123873] el0_svc_naked+0x30/0x34 [ 831.127437] Code: 97fffe97 17ffffec 00000000 f9800031 (885f7c31) Reason for this is because memory is required to be aligned. In case of BPF, we always enforce alignment in terms of stack access, but not when accessing map values or packet data when the underlying arch (e.g. arm64) has CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS set. xadd on packet data that is local to us anyway is just wrong, so forbid this case entirely. The only place where xadd makes sense in fact are map values; xadd on stack is wrong as well, but it's been around for much longer. Specifically enforce strict alignment in case of xadd, so that we handle this case generically and avoid such crashes in the first place. Fixes: 17a5267067f3 ("bpf: verifier (add verifier core)") Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf, arm64: fix out of bounds access in tail call

2018-03-11T15:23:22+00:00

[ upstream commit 16338a9b3ac30740d49f5dfed81bac0ffa53b9c7 ] I recently noticed a crash on arm64 when feeding a bogus index into BPF tail call helper. The crash would not occur when the interpreter is used, but only in case of JIT. Output looks as follows: [ 347.007486] Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address fffb850e96492510 [...] [ 347.043065] [fffb850e96492510] address between user and kernel address ranges [ 347.050205] Internal error: Oops: 96000004 [#1] SMP [...] [ 347.190829] x13: 0000000000000000 x12: 0000000000000000 [ 347.196128] x11: fffc047ebe782800 x10: ffff808fd7d0fd10 [ 347.201427] x9 : 0000000000000000 x8 : 0000000000000000 [ 347.206726] x7 : 0000000000000000 x6 : 001c991738000000 [ 347.212025] x5 : 0000000000000018 x4 : 000000000000ba5a [ 347.217325] x3 : 00000000000329c4 x2 : ffff808fd7cf0500 [ 347.222625] x1 : ffff808fd7d0fc00 x0 : ffff808fd7cf0500 [ 347.227926] Process test_verifier (pid: 4548, stack limit = 0x000000007467fa61) [ 347.235221] Call trace: [ 347.237656] 0xffff000002f3a4fc [ 347.240784] bpf_test_run+0x78/0xf8 [ 347.244260] bpf_prog_test_run_skb+0x148/0x230 [ 347.248694] SyS_bpf+0x77c/0x1110 [ 347.251999] el0_svc_naked+0x30/0x34 [ 347.255564] Code: 9100075a d280220a 8b0a002a d37df04b (f86b694b) [...] In this case the index used in BPF r3 is the same as in r1 at the time of the call, meaning we fed a pointer as index; here, it had the value 0xffff808fd7cf0500 which sits in x2. While I found tail calls to be working in general (also for hitting the error cases), I noticed the following in the code emission: # bpftool p d j i 988 [...] 38: ldr w10, [x1,x10] 3c: cmp w2, w10 40: b.ge 0x000000000000007c <-- signed cmp 44: mov x10, #0x20 // #32 48: cmp x26, x10 4c: b.gt 0x000000000000007c 50: add x26, x26, #0x1 54: mov x10, #0x110 // #272 58: add x10, x1, x10 5c: lsl x11, x2, #3 60: ldr x11, [x10,x11] <-- faulting insn (f86b694b) 64: cbz x11, 0x000000000000007c [...] Meaning, the tests passed because commit ddb55992b04d ("arm64: bpf: implement bpf_tail_call() helper") was using signed compares instead of unsigned which as a result had the test wrongly passing. Change this but also the tail call count test both into unsigned and cap the index as u32. Latter we did as well in 90caccdd8cc0 ("bpf: fix bpf_tail_call() x64 JIT") and is needed in addition here, too. Tested on HiSilicon Hi1616. Result after patch: # bpftool p d j i 268 [...] 38: ldr w10, [x1,x10] 3c: add w2, w2, #0x0 40: cmp w2, w10 44: b.cs 0x0000000000000080 48: mov x10, #0x20 // #32 4c: cmp x26, x10 50: b.hi 0x0000000000000080 54: add x26, x26, #0x1 58: mov x10, #0x110 // #272 5c: add x10, x1, x10 60: lsl x11, x2, #3 64: ldr x11, [x10,x11] 68: cbz x11, 0x0000000000000080 [...] Fixes: ddb55992b04d ("arm64: bpf: implement bpf_tail_call() helper") Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: mark dst unknown on inconsistent {s, u}bounds adjustments

2018-02-25T10:07:45+00:00

commit 6f16101e6a8b4324c36e58a29d9e0dbb287cdedb upstream. syzkaller generated a BPF proglet and triggered a warning with the following: 0: (b7) r0 = 0 1: (d5) if r0 s<= 0x0 goto pc+0 R0=inv0 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0 2: (1f) r0 -= r1 R0=inv0 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0 verifier internal error: known but bad sbounds What happens is that in the first insn, r0's min/max value are both 0 due to the immediate assignment, later in the jsle test the bounds are updated for the min value in the false path, meaning, they yield smin_val = 1, smax_val = 0, and when ctx pointer is subtracted from r0, verifier bails out with the internal error and throwing a WARN since smin_val != smax_val for the known constant. For min_val > max_val scenario it means that reg_set_min_max() and reg_set_min_max_inv() (which both refine existing bounds) demonstrated that such branch cannot be taken at runtime. In above scenario for the case where it will be taken, the existing [0, 0] bounds are kept intact. Meaning, the rejection is not due to a verifier internal error, and therefore the WARN() is not necessary either. We could just reject such cases in adjust_{ptr,scalar}_min_max_vals() when either known scalars have smin_val != smax_val or umin_val != umax_val or any scalar reg with bounds smin_val > smax_val or umin_val > umax_val. However, there may be a small risk of breakage of buggy programs, so handle this more gracefully and in adjust_{ptr,scalar}_min_max_vals() just taint the dst reg as unknown scalar when we see ops with such kind of src reg. Reported-by: syzbot+6d362cadd45dc0a12ba4@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: reject stores into ctx via st and xadd

2018-01-31T13:03:50+00:00

[ upstream commit f37a8cb84cce18762e8f86a70bd6a49a66ab964c ] Alexei found that verifier does not reject stores into context via BPF_ST instead of BPF_STX. And while looking at it, we also should not allow XADD variant of BPF_STX. The context rewriter is only assuming either BPF_LDX_MEM- or BPF_STX_MEM-type operations, thus reject anything other than that so that assumptions in the rewriter properly hold. Add test cases as well for BPF selftests. Fixes: d691f9e8d440 ("bpf: allow programs to write to certain skb fields") Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: arsh is not supported in 32 bit alu thus reject it

2018-01-17T08:45:25+00:00

commit 7891a87efc7116590eaba57acc3c422487802c6f upstream. The following snippet was throwing an 'unknown opcode cc' warning in BPF interpreter: 0: (18) r0 = 0x0 2: (7b) *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = r0 3: (cc) (u32) r0 s>>= (u32) r0 4: (95) exit Although a number of JITs do support BPF_ALU | BPF_ARSH | BPF_{K,X} generation, not all of them do and interpreter does neither. We can leave existing ones and implement it later in bpf-next for the remaining ones, but reject this properly in verifier for the time being. Fixes: 17a5267067f3 ("bpf: verifier (add verifier core)") Reported-by: syzbot+93c4904c5c70348a6890@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

selftests/bpf: add tests for recent bugfixes

2017-12-25T13:26:33+00:00

From: Jann Horn [ Upstream commit 2255f8d520b0a318fc6d387d0940854b2f522a7f ] These tests should cover the following cases: - MOV with both zero-extended and sign-extended immediates - implicit truncation of register contents via ALU32/MOV32 - implicit 32-bit truncation of ALU32 output - oversized register source operand for ALU32 shift - right-shift of a number that could be positive or negative - map access where adding the operation size to the offset causes signed 32-bit overflow - direct stack access at a ~4GiB offset Also remove the F_LOAD_WITH_STRICT_ALIGNMENT flag from a bunch of tests that should fail independent of what flags userspace passes. Signed-off-by: Jann Horn Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman