diff mbox series

[ipsec-next,v3,5/9] libbpf: selftests: Add verifier tests for CO-RE bitfield writes

Message ID e4d14fb5f07145ff4a367cc01d8dcf6c82581c88.1701462010.git.dxu@dxuuu.xyz
State Superseded
Headers show
Series Add bpf_xdp_get_xfrm_state() kfunc | expand

Commit Message

Daniel Xu Dec. 1, 2023, 8:23 p.m. UTC
Add some tests that exercise BPF_CORE_WRITE_BITFIELD() macro. Since some
non-trivial bit fiddling is going on, make sure various edge cases (such
as adjacent bitfields and bitfields at the edge of structs) are
exercised.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Xu <dxu@dxuuu.xyz>
---
 .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c       |   2 +
 .../bpf/progs/verifier_bitfield_write.c       | 100 ++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 102 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bitfield_write.c

Comments

Andrii Nakryiko Dec. 1, 2023, 11:52 p.m. UTC | #1
On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 12:24 PM Daniel Xu <dxu@dxuuu.xyz> wrote:
>
> Add some tests that exercise BPF_CORE_WRITE_BITFIELD() macro. Since some
> non-trivial bit fiddling is going on, make sure various edge cases (such
> as adjacent bitfields and bitfields at the edge of structs) are
> exercised.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Xu <dxu@dxuuu.xyz>
> ---
>  .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c       |   2 +
>  .../bpf/progs/verifier_bitfield_write.c       | 100 ++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 102 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bitfield_write.c
>

LGTM, but I'm not sure why we need all those __failure_unpriv, see
below. Regardless:

Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>

> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c
> index 5cfa7a6316b6..67b4948865a3 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c
> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
>  #include "verifier_and.skel.h"
>  #include "verifier_array_access.skel.h"
>  #include "verifier_basic_stack.skel.h"
> +#include "verifier_bitfield_write.skel.h"
>  #include "verifier_bounds.skel.h"
>  #include "verifier_bounds_deduction.skel.h"
>  #include "verifier_bounds_deduction_non_const.skel.h"
> @@ -115,6 +116,7 @@ static void run_tests_aux(const char *skel_name,
>
>  void test_verifier_and(void)                  { RUN(verifier_and); }
>  void test_verifier_basic_stack(void)          { RUN(verifier_basic_stack); }
> +void test_verifier_bitfield_write(void)       { RUN(verifier_bitfield_write); }
>  void test_verifier_bounds(void)               { RUN(verifier_bounds); }
>  void test_verifier_bounds_deduction(void)     { RUN(verifier_bounds_deduction); }
>  void test_verifier_bounds_deduction_non_const(void)     { RUN(verifier_bounds_deduction_non_const); }
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bitfield_write.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bitfield_write.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..8fe355a19ba6
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bitfield_write.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,100 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +
> +#include <linux/bpf.h>
> +#include <stdint.h>
> +
> +#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
> +#include <bpf/bpf_core_read.h>
> +
> +#include "bpf_misc.h"
> +
> +struct core_reloc_bitfields {
> +       /* unsigned bitfields */
> +       uint8_t         ub1: 1;
> +       uint8_t         ub2: 2;
> +       uint32_t        ub7: 7;
> +       /* signed bitfields */
> +       int8_t          sb4: 4;
> +       int32_t         sb20: 20;
> +       /* non-bitfields */
> +       uint32_t        u32;
> +       int32_t         s32;
> +} __attribute__((preserve_access_index));
> +
> +SEC("tc")
> +__description("single CO-RE bitfield roundtrip")
> +__btf_path("btf__core_reloc_bitfields.bpf.o")
> +__success __failure_unpriv

do we want __failure_unpriv at all? Is this failure related to
*bitfield* logic at all?

> +__retval(3)
> +int single_field_roundtrip(struct __sk_buff *ctx)
> +{
> +       struct core_reloc_bitfields bitfields;
> +
> +       __builtin_memset(&bitfields, 0, sizeof(bitfields));
> +       BPF_CORE_WRITE_BITFIELD(&bitfields, ub2, 3);
> +       return BPF_CORE_READ_BITFIELD(&bitfields, ub2);
> +}
> +

[...]
Daniel Xu Dec. 2, 2023, 12:10 a.m. UTC | #2
Hi Andrii,

On Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 03:52:25PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 12:24 PM Daniel Xu <dxu@dxuuu.xyz> wrote:
> >
> > Add some tests that exercise BPF_CORE_WRITE_BITFIELD() macro. Since some
> > non-trivial bit fiddling is going on, make sure various edge cases (such
> > as adjacent bitfields and bitfields at the edge of structs) are
> > exercised.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Xu <dxu@dxuuu.xyz>
> > ---
> >  .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c       |   2 +
> >  .../bpf/progs/verifier_bitfield_write.c       | 100 ++++++++++++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 102 insertions(+)
> >  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bitfield_write.c
> >
> 
> LGTM, but I'm not sure why we need all those __failure_unpriv, see
> below. Regardless:
> 
> Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
> 
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c
> > index 5cfa7a6316b6..67b4948865a3 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c
> > @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
> >  #include "verifier_and.skel.h"
> >  #include "verifier_array_access.skel.h"
> >  #include "verifier_basic_stack.skel.h"
> > +#include "verifier_bitfield_write.skel.h"
> >  #include "verifier_bounds.skel.h"
> >  #include "verifier_bounds_deduction.skel.h"
> >  #include "verifier_bounds_deduction_non_const.skel.h"
> > @@ -115,6 +116,7 @@ static void run_tests_aux(const char *skel_name,
> >
> >  void test_verifier_and(void)                  { RUN(verifier_and); }
> >  void test_verifier_basic_stack(void)          { RUN(verifier_basic_stack); }
> > +void test_verifier_bitfield_write(void)       { RUN(verifier_bitfield_write); }
> >  void test_verifier_bounds(void)               { RUN(verifier_bounds); }
> >  void test_verifier_bounds_deduction(void)     { RUN(verifier_bounds_deduction); }
> >  void test_verifier_bounds_deduction_non_const(void)     { RUN(verifier_bounds_deduction_non_const); }
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bitfield_write.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bitfield_write.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..8fe355a19ba6
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bitfield_write.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,100 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > +
> > +#include <linux/bpf.h>
> > +#include <stdint.h>
> > +
> > +#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
> > +#include <bpf/bpf_core_read.h>
> > +
> > +#include "bpf_misc.h"
> > +
> > +struct core_reloc_bitfields {
> > +       /* unsigned bitfields */
> > +       uint8_t         ub1: 1;
> > +       uint8_t         ub2: 2;
> > +       uint32_t        ub7: 7;
> > +       /* signed bitfields */
> > +       int8_t          sb4: 4;
> > +       int32_t         sb20: 20;
> > +       /* non-bitfields */
> > +       uint32_t        u32;
> > +       int32_t         s32;
> > +} __attribute__((preserve_access_index));
> > +
> > +SEC("tc")
> > +__description("single CO-RE bitfield roundtrip")
> > +__btf_path("btf__core_reloc_bitfields.bpf.o")
> > +__success __failure_unpriv
> 
> do we want __failure_unpriv at all? Is this failure related to
> *bitfield* logic at all?

Oh, I pre-emptively added it. From the docs, I thought __failure_unpriv
meant "don't try to load this as an unprivileged used cuz it'll fail".
And since I used the tc hook, I figured it'd fail.

Removing the annotation doesn't seem to do anything bad so I'll drop it
for v4.

[...]

Thanks,
Daniel
Eduard Zingerman Dec. 2, 2023, 12:20 a.m. UTC | #3
On Fri, 2023-12-01 at 17:10 -0700, Daniel Xu wrote:
[...]
> > > +SEC("tc")
> > > +__description("single CO-RE bitfield roundtrip")
> > > +__btf_path("btf__core_reloc_bitfields.bpf.o")
> > > +__success __failure_unpriv
> > 
> > do we want __failure_unpriv at all? Is this failure related to
> > *bitfield* logic at all?
> 
> Oh, I pre-emptively added it. From the docs, I thought __failure_unpriv
> meant "don't try to load this as an unprivileged used cuz it'll fail".
> And since I used the tc hook, I figured it'd fail.

Actually it means:
"try to load as unprivileged user and expect failure,
 report error on successful load".

In general, the meaning of "___xxx" and "___xxx_unpriv" annotations
is identical, except first instructs to run the test in privileged mode,
while second instructs to run test in unprivileged mode:
- if only annotations w/o "*_unpriv" suffix are present the test would
  be executed as privileged;
- if only annotations with "*_unpriv" suffix are present the test would
  be executed as unprivileged;
- if both kinds of annotations are present the test would be executed
  in both modes.

[...]
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c
index 5cfa7a6316b6..67b4948865a3 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ 
 #include "verifier_and.skel.h"
 #include "verifier_array_access.skel.h"
 #include "verifier_basic_stack.skel.h"
+#include "verifier_bitfield_write.skel.h"
 #include "verifier_bounds.skel.h"
 #include "verifier_bounds_deduction.skel.h"
 #include "verifier_bounds_deduction_non_const.skel.h"
@@ -115,6 +116,7 @@  static void run_tests_aux(const char *skel_name,
 
 void test_verifier_and(void)                  { RUN(verifier_and); }
 void test_verifier_basic_stack(void)          { RUN(verifier_basic_stack); }
+void test_verifier_bitfield_write(void)       { RUN(verifier_bitfield_write); }
 void test_verifier_bounds(void)               { RUN(verifier_bounds); }
 void test_verifier_bounds_deduction(void)     { RUN(verifier_bounds_deduction); }
 void test_verifier_bounds_deduction_non_const(void)     { RUN(verifier_bounds_deduction_non_const); }
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bitfield_write.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bitfield_write.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..8fe355a19ba6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bitfield_write.c
@@ -0,0 +1,100 @@ 
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+#include <linux/bpf.h>
+#include <stdint.h>
+
+#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_core_read.h>
+
+#include "bpf_misc.h"
+
+struct core_reloc_bitfields {
+	/* unsigned bitfields */
+	uint8_t		ub1: 1;
+	uint8_t		ub2: 2;
+	uint32_t	ub7: 7;
+	/* signed bitfields */
+	int8_t		sb4: 4;
+	int32_t		sb20: 20;
+	/* non-bitfields */
+	uint32_t	u32;
+	int32_t		s32;
+} __attribute__((preserve_access_index));
+
+SEC("tc")
+__description("single CO-RE bitfield roundtrip")
+__btf_path("btf__core_reloc_bitfields.bpf.o")
+__success __failure_unpriv
+__retval(3)
+int single_field_roundtrip(struct __sk_buff *ctx)
+{
+	struct core_reloc_bitfields bitfields;
+
+	__builtin_memset(&bitfields, 0, sizeof(bitfields));
+	BPF_CORE_WRITE_BITFIELD(&bitfields, ub2, 3);
+	return BPF_CORE_READ_BITFIELD(&bitfields, ub2);
+}
+
+SEC("tc")
+__description("multiple CO-RE bitfield roundtrip")
+__btf_path("btf__core_reloc_bitfields.bpf.o")
+__success __failure_unpriv
+__retval(0x3FD)
+int multiple_field_roundtrip(struct __sk_buff *ctx)
+{
+	struct core_reloc_bitfields bitfields;
+	uint8_t ub2;
+	int8_t sb4;
+
+	__builtin_memset(&bitfields, 0, sizeof(bitfields));
+	BPF_CORE_WRITE_BITFIELD(&bitfields, ub2, 1);
+	BPF_CORE_WRITE_BITFIELD(&bitfields, sb4, -1);
+
+	ub2 = BPF_CORE_READ_BITFIELD(&bitfields, ub2);
+	sb4 = BPF_CORE_READ_BITFIELD(&bitfields, sb4);
+
+	return (((uint8_t)sb4) << 2) | ub2;
+}
+
+SEC("tc")
+__description("adjacent CO-RE bitfield roundtrip")
+__btf_path("btf__core_reloc_bitfields.bpf.o")
+__success __failure_unpriv
+__retval(7)
+int adjacent_field_roundtrip(struct __sk_buff *ctx)
+{
+	struct core_reloc_bitfields bitfields;
+	uint8_t ub1, ub2;
+
+	__builtin_memset(&bitfields, 0, sizeof(bitfields));
+	BPF_CORE_WRITE_BITFIELD(&bitfields, ub1, 1);
+	BPF_CORE_WRITE_BITFIELD(&bitfields, ub2, 3);
+
+	ub1 = BPF_CORE_READ_BITFIELD(&bitfields, ub1);
+	ub2 = BPF_CORE_READ_BITFIELD(&bitfields, ub2);
+
+	return (ub2 << 1) | ub1;
+}
+
+SEC("tc")
+__description("multibyte CO-RE bitfield roundtrip")
+__btf_path("btf__core_reloc_bitfields.bpf.o")
+__success __failure_unpriv
+__retval(0x21)
+int multibyte_field_roundtrip(struct __sk_buff *ctx)
+{
+	struct core_reloc_bitfields bitfields;
+	uint32_t ub7;
+	uint8_t ub1;
+
+	__builtin_memset(&bitfields, 0, sizeof(bitfields));
+	BPF_CORE_WRITE_BITFIELD(&bitfields, ub1, 1);
+	BPF_CORE_WRITE_BITFIELD(&bitfields, ub7, 16);
+
+	ub1 = BPF_CORE_READ_BITFIELD(&bitfields, ub1);
+	ub7 = BPF_CORE_READ_BITFIELD(&bitfields, ub7);
+
+	return (ub7 << 1) | ub1;
+}
+
+char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";