[PATCH bpf-next v4 3/3] selftests/bpf: add testcase to verifier_bounds.c for JMP_NE

Menglong Dong posted 3 patches 2 years ago
There is a newer version of this series
[PATCH bpf-next v4 3/3] selftests/bpf: add testcase to verifier_bounds.c for JMP_NE
Posted by Menglong Dong 2 years ago
Add testcase for the logic that the verifier tracks the BPF_JNE for regs.
The assembly function "reg_not_equal()" that we add is exactly converted
from the following case:

  u32 a = bpf_get_prandom_u32();
  u64 b = 0;

  a %= 8;
  /* the "a > 0" here will be optimized to "a != 0" */
  if (a > 0) {
    /* now the range of a should be [1, 7] */
    bpf_skb_store_bytes(skb, 0, &b, a, 0);
  }

Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@gmail.com>
---
 .../selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bounds.c     | 27 +++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bounds.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bounds.c
index ec430b71730b..3fe2ce2b3f21 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bounds.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bounds.c
@@ -1075,4 +1075,31 @@ l0_%=:	r0 = 0;						\
 	: __clobber_all);
 }
 
+SEC("tc")
+__description("bounds check with JMP_NE for reg edge")
+__success __retval(0)
+__naked void reg_not_equal(void)
+{
+	asm volatile ("					\
+	r6 = r1;					\
+	r1 = 0;						\
+	*(u64*)(r10 - 8) = r1;				\
+	call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];			\
+	r4 = r0;					\
+	r4 &= 7;					\
+	if r4 == 0 goto l0_%=;				\
+	r1 = r6;					\
+	r2 = 0;						\
+	r3 = r10;					\
+	r3 += -8;					\
+	r5 = 0;						\
+	call %[bpf_skb_store_bytes];			\
+l0_%=:	r0 = 0;						\
+	exit;						\
+"	:
+	: __imm(bpf_get_prandom_u32),
+	  __imm(bpf_skb_store_bytes)
+	: __clobber_all);
+}
+
 char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
-- 
2.39.2
Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 3/3] selftests/bpf: add testcase to verifier_bounds.c for JMP_NE
Posted by Andrii Nakryiko 2 years ago
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 5:18 AM Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Add testcase for the logic that the verifier tracks the BPF_JNE for regs.
> The assembly function "reg_not_equal()" that we add is exactly converted
> from the following case:
>
>   u32 a = bpf_get_prandom_u32();
>   u64 b = 0;
>
>   a %= 8;
>   /* the "a > 0" here will be optimized to "a != 0" */
>   if (a > 0) {
>     /* now the range of a should be [1, 7] */
>     bpf_skb_store_bytes(skb, 0, &b, a, 0);
>   }
>
> Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@gmail.com>
> ---
>  .../selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bounds.c     | 27 +++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)
>

LGTM, but please add a comment that we rely on bpf_skb_store_byte's
4th argument being defined as ARG_CONST_SIZE, so zero is not allowed.
And that r4 == 0 check is providing us this exclusion of zero from
initial [0, 7] range.


> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bounds.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bounds.c
> index ec430b71730b..3fe2ce2b3f21 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bounds.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bounds.c
> @@ -1075,4 +1075,31 @@ l0_%=:   r0 = 0;                                         \
>         : __clobber_all);
>  }
>
> +SEC("tc")
> +__description("bounds check with JMP_NE for reg edge")
> +__success __retval(0)
> +__naked void reg_not_equal(void)

technically, you are testing `r4 == 0` :) so maybe call the test
reg_equal_const or something. And then add similar test where you
actually have `r4 != 0`, called req_no_equal_const?

> +{
> +       asm volatile ("                                 \
> +       r6 = r1;                                        \
> +       r1 = 0;                                         \
> +       *(u64*)(r10 - 8) = r1;                          \
> +       call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];                    \
> +       r4 = r0;                                        \
> +       r4 &= 7;                                        \
> +       if r4 == 0 goto l0_%=;                          \
> +       r1 = r6;                                        \
> +       r2 = 0;                                         \
> +       r3 = r10;                                       \
> +       r3 += -8;                                       \
> +       r5 = 0;                                         \
> +       call %[bpf_skb_store_bytes];                    \
> +l0_%=: r0 = 0;                                         \
> +       exit;                                           \
> +"      :
> +       : __imm(bpf_get_prandom_u32),
> +         __imm(bpf_skb_store_bytes)
> +       : __clobber_all);
> +}
> +
>  char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
> --
> 2.39.2
>
Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 3/3] selftests/bpf: add testcase to verifier_bounds.c for JMP_NE
Posted by Menglong Dong 2 years ago
On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 2:03 AM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 5:18 AM Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Add testcase for the logic that the verifier tracks the BPF_JNE for regs.
> > The assembly function "reg_not_equal()" that we add is exactly converted
> > from the following case:
> >
> >   u32 a = bpf_get_prandom_u32();
> >   u64 b = 0;
> >
> >   a %= 8;
> >   /* the "a > 0" here will be optimized to "a != 0" */
> >   if (a > 0) {
> >     /* now the range of a should be [1, 7] */
> >     bpf_skb_store_bytes(skb, 0, &b, a, 0);
> >   }
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  .../selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bounds.c     | 27 +++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)
> >
>
> LGTM, but please add a comment that we rely on bpf_skb_store_byte's
> 4th argument being defined as ARG_CONST_SIZE, so zero is not allowed.
> And that r4 == 0 check is providing us this exclusion of zero from
> initial [0, 7] range.
>

Okay, sounds great! BTW, should I add such a comment to the
commit log or to the assembly function?

>
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bounds.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bounds.c
> > index ec430b71730b..3fe2ce2b3f21 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bounds.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bounds.c
> > @@ -1075,4 +1075,31 @@ l0_%=:   r0 = 0;                                         \
> >         : __clobber_all);
> >  }
> >
> > +SEC("tc")
> > +__description("bounds check with JMP_NE for reg edge")
> > +__success __retval(0)
> > +__naked void reg_not_equal(void)
>
> technically, you are testing `r4 == 0` :) so maybe call the test
> reg_equal_const or something. And then add similar test where you
> actually have `r4 != 0`, called req_no_equal_const?
>

Yeah, that makes sense. I'll add such a test in the next version.

Thanks!
Menglong Dong

> > +{
> > +       asm volatile ("                                 \
> > +       r6 = r1;                                        \
> > +       r1 = 0;                                         \
> > +       *(u64*)(r10 - 8) = r1;                          \
> > +       call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];                    \
> > +       r4 = r0;                                        \
> > +       r4 &= 7;                                        \
> > +       if r4 == 0 goto l0_%=;                          \
> > +       r1 = r6;                                        \
> > +       r2 = 0;                                         \
> > +       r3 = r10;                                       \
> > +       r3 += -8;                                       \
> > +       r5 = 0;                                         \
> > +       call %[bpf_skb_store_bytes];                    \
> > +l0_%=: r0 = 0;                                         \
> > +       exit;                                           \
> > +"      :
> > +       : __imm(bpf_get_prandom_u32),
> > +         __imm(bpf_skb_store_bytes)
> > +       : __clobber_all);
> > +}
> > +
> >  char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
> > --
> > 2.39.2
> >
Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 3/3] selftests/bpf: add testcase to verifier_bounds.c for JMP_NE
Posted by Andrii Nakryiko 2 years ago
On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 6:27 PM Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 2:03 AM Andrii Nakryiko
> <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 5:18 AM Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Add testcase for the logic that the verifier tracks the BPF_JNE for regs.
> > > The assembly function "reg_not_equal()" that we add is exactly converted
> > > from the following case:
> > >
> > >   u32 a = bpf_get_prandom_u32();
> > >   u64 b = 0;
> > >
> > >   a %= 8;
> > >   /* the "a > 0" here will be optimized to "a != 0" */
> > >   if (a > 0) {
> > >     /* now the range of a should be [1, 7] */
> > >     bpf_skb_store_bytes(skb, 0, &b, a, 0);
> > >   }
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > >  .../selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bounds.c     | 27 +++++++++++++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)
> > >
> >
> > LGTM, but please add a comment that we rely on bpf_skb_store_byte's
> > 4th argument being defined as ARG_CONST_SIZE, so zero is not allowed.
> > And that r4 == 0 check is providing us this exclusion of zero from
> > initial [0, 7] range.
> >
>
> Okay, sounds great! BTW, should I add such a comment to the
> commit log or to the assembly function?
>

I'd leave it in the code, next to the function itself

> >
> > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bounds.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bounds.c
> > > index ec430b71730b..3fe2ce2b3f21 100644
> > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bounds.c
> > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bounds.c
> > > @@ -1075,4 +1075,31 @@ l0_%=:   r0 = 0;                                         \
> > >         : __clobber_all);
> > >  }
> > >
> > > +SEC("tc")
> > > +__description("bounds check with JMP_NE for reg edge")
> > > +__success __retval(0)
> > > +__naked void reg_not_equal(void)
> >
> > technically, you are testing `r4 == 0` :) so maybe call the test
> > reg_equal_const or something. And then add similar test where you
> > actually have `r4 != 0`, called req_no_equal_const?
> >
>
> Yeah, that makes sense. I'll add such a test in the next version.
>
> Thanks!
> Menglong Dong
>
> > > +{
> > > +       asm volatile ("                                 \
> > > +       r6 = r1;                                        \
> > > +       r1 = 0;                                         \
> > > +       *(u64*)(r10 - 8) = r1;                          \
> > > +       call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];                    \
> > > +       r4 = r0;                                        \
> > > +       r4 &= 7;                                        \
> > > +       if r4 == 0 goto l0_%=;                          \
> > > +       r1 = r6;                                        \
> > > +       r2 = 0;                                         \
> > > +       r3 = r10;                                       \
> > > +       r3 += -8;                                       \
> > > +       r5 = 0;                                         \
> > > +       call %[bpf_skb_store_bytes];                    \
> > > +l0_%=: r0 = 0;                                         \
> > > +       exit;                                           \
> > > +"      :
> > > +       : __imm(bpf_get_prandom_u32),
> > > +         __imm(bpf_skb_store_bytes)
> > > +       : __clobber_all);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > >  char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
> > > --
> > > 2.39.2
> > >