From e9ee9efc0d176512cdce9d27ff8549d7ffa2bfcd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: David Miller Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 21:08:14 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 1/4] bpf: Add BPF_F_ANY_ALIGNMENT. Often we want to write tests cases that check things like bad context offset accesses. And one way to do this is to use an odd offset on, for example, a 32-bit load. This unfortunately triggers the alignment checks first on platforms that do not set CONFIG_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS. So the test case see the alignment failure rather than what it was testing for. It is often not completely possible to respect the original intention of the test, or even test the same exact thing, while solving the alignment issue. Another option could have been to check the alignment after the context and other validations are performed by the verifier, but that is a non-trivial change to the verifier. Signed-off-by: David S. Miller Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov --- include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 14 ++++++++++++++ kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 7 ++++++- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 2 ++ tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 14 ++++++++++++++ tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c | 8 ++++---- tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h | 2 +- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c | 4 ++-- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 3 ++- 8 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h index 597afdbc1ab9..8050caea7495 100644 --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h @@ -232,6 +232,20 @@ enum bpf_attach_type { */ #define BPF_F_STRICT_ALIGNMENT (1U << 0) +/* If BPF_F_ANY_ALIGNMENT is used in BPF_PROF_LOAD command, the + * verifier will allow any alignment whatsoever. On platforms + * with strict alignment requirements for loads ands stores (such + * as sparc and mips) the verifier validates that all loads and + * stores provably follow this requirement. This flag turns that + * checking and enforcement off. + * + * It is mostly used for testing when we want to validate the + * context and memory access aspects of the verifier, but because + * of an unaligned access the alignment check would trigger before + * the one we are interested in. + */ +#define BPF_F_ANY_ALIGNMENT (1U << 1) + /* when bpf_ldimm64->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_MAP_FD, bpf_ldimm64->imm == fd */ #define BPF_PSEUDO_MAP_FD 1 diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c index 85cbeec06e50..f9554d9a14e1 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c @@ -1452,9 +1452,14 @@ static int bpf_prog_load(union bpf_attr *attr, union bpf_attr __user *uattr) if (CHECK_ATTR(BPF_PROG_LOAD)) return -EINVAL; - if (attr->prog_flags & ~BPF_F_STRICT_ALIGNMENT) + if (attr->prog_flags & ~(BPF_F_STRICT_ALIGNMENT | BPF_F_ANY_ALIGNMENT)) return -EINVAL; + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS) && + (attr->prog_flags & BPF_F_ANY_ALIGNMENT) && + !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) + return -EPERM; + /* copy eBPF program license from user space */ if (strncpy_from_user(license, u64_to_user_ptr(attr->license), sizeof(license) - 1) < 0) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 9584438fa2cc..71988337ac14 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -6505,6 +6505,8 @@ int bpf_check(struct bpf_prog **prog, union bpf_attr *attr, env->strict_alignment = !!(attr->prog_flags & BPF_F_STRICT_ALIGNMENT); if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS)) env->strict_alignment = true; + if (attr->prog_flags & BPF_F_ANY_ALIGNMENT) + env->strict_alignment = false; ret = replace_map_fd_with_map_ptr(env); if (ret < 0) diff --git a/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h index 597afdbc1ab9..8050caea7495 100644 --- a/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h +++ b/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h @@ -232,6 +232,20 @@ enum bpf_attach_type { */ #define BPF_F_STRICT_ALIGNMENT (1U << 0) +/* If BPF_F_ANY_ALIGNMENT is used in BPF_PROF_LOAD command, the + * verifier will allow any alignment whatsoever. On platforms + * with strict alignment requirements for loads ands stores (such + * as sparc and mips) the verifier validates that all loads and + * stores provably follow this requirement. This flag turns that + * checking and enforcement off. + * + * It is mostly used for testing when we want to validate the + * context and memory access aspects of the verifier, but because + * of an unaligned access the alignment check would trigger before + * the one we are interested in. + */ +#define BPF_F_ANY_ALIGNMENT (1U << 1) + /* when bpf_ldimm64->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_MAP_FD, bpf_ldimm64->imm == fd */ #define BPF_PSEUDO_MAP_FD 1 diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c index ce1822194590..c19226cccf39 100644 --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c @@ -279,9 +279,9 @@ int bpf_load_program(enum bpf_prog_type type, const struct bpf_insn *insns, } int bpf_verify_program(enum bpf_prog_type type, const struct bpf_insn *insns, - size_t insns_cnt, int strict_alignment, - const char *license, __u32 kern_version, - char *log_buf, size_t log_buf_sz, int log_level) + size_t insns_cnt, __u32 prog_flags, const char *license, + __u32 kern_version, char *log_buf, size_t log_buf_sz, + int log_level) { union bpf_attr attr; @@ -295,7 +295,7 @@ int bpf_verify_program(enum bpf_prog_type type, const struct bpf_insn *insns, attr.log_level = log_level; log_buf[0] = 0; attr.kern_version = kern_version; - attr.prog_flags = strict_alignment ? BPF_F_STRICT_ALIGNMENT : 0; + attr.prog_flags = prog_flags; return sys_bpf(BPF_PROG_LOAD, &attr, sizeof(attr)); } diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h index 09e8bbe111d4..60392b70587c 100644 --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h @@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ LIBBPF_API int bpf_load_program(enum bpf_prog_type type, char *log_buf, size_t log_buf_sz); LIBBPF_API int bpf_verify_program(enum bpf_prog_type type, const struct bpf_insn *insns, - size_t insns_cnt, int strict_alignment, + size_t insns_cnt, __u32 prog_flags, const char *license, __u32 kern_version, char *log_buf, size_t log_buf_sz, int log_level); diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c index 5f377ec53f2f..3c789d03b629 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c @@ -620,8 +620,8 @@ static int do_test_single(struct bpf_align_test *test) prog_len = probe_filter_length(prog); fd_prog = bpf_verify_program(prog_type ? : BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCKET_FILTER, - prog, prog_len, 1, "GPL", 0, - bpf_vlog, sizeof(bpf_vlog), 2); + prog, prog_len, BPF_F_STRICT_ALIGNMENT, + "GPL", 0, bpf_vlog, sizeof(bpf_vlog), 2); if (fd_prog < 0 && test->result != REJECT) { printf("Failed to load program.\n"); printf("%s", bpf_vlog); diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c index 5eace1f606fb..78e779c35869 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c @@ -14275,7 +14275,8 @@ static void do_test_single(struct bpf_test *test, bool unpriv, prog_len = probe_filter_length(prog); fd_prog = bpf_verify_program(prog_type, prog, prog_len, - test->flags & F_LOAD_WITH_STRICT_ALIGNMENT, + test->flags & F_LOAD_WITH_STRICT_ALIGNMENT ? + BPF_F_STRICT_ALIGNMENT : 0, "GPL", 0, bpf_vlog, sizeof(bpf_vlog), 1); expected_ret = unpriv && test->result_unpriv != UNDEF ? From c7665702d3208b77b8e00f0699b6b88241b04360 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: David Miller Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 21:08:26 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 2/4] bpf: Adjust F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS handling in test_verifier.c Make it set the flag argument to bpf_verify_program() which will relax the alignment restrictions. Now all such test cases will go properly through the verifier even on inefficient unaligned access architectures. On inefficient unaligned access architectures do not try to run such programs, instead mark the test case as passing but annotate the result similarly to how it is done now in the presence of this flag. So, we get complete full coverage for all REJECT test cases, and at least verifier level coverage for ACCEPT test cases. Signed-off-by: David S. Miller Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov --- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 42 ++++++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c index 78e779c35869..1d1775faaf14 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c @@ -14257,13 +14257,14 @@ out: static void do_test_single(struct bpf_test *test, bool unpriv, int *passes, int *errors) { - int fd_prog, expected_ret, reject_from_alignment; + int fd_prog, expected_ret, alignment_prevented_execution; int prog_len, prog_type = test->prog_type; struct bpf_insn *prog = test->insns; int map_fds[MAX_NR_MAPS]; const char *expected_err; uint32_t expected_val; uint32_t retval; + __u32 pflags; int i, err; for (i = 0; i < MAX_NR_MAPS; i++) @@ -14274,9 +14275,12 @@ static void do_test_single(struct bpf_test *test, bool unpriv, do_test_fixup(test, prog_type, prog, map_fds); prog_len = probe_filter_length(prog); - fd_prog = bpf_verify_program(prog_type, prog, prog_len, - test->flags & F_LOAD_WITH_STRICT_ALIGNMENT ? - BPF_F_STRICT_ALIGNMENT : 0, + pflags = 0; + if (test->flags & F_LOAD_WITH_STRICT_ALIGNMENT) + pflags |= BPF_F_STRICT_ALIGNMENT; + if (test->flags & F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS) + pflags |= BPF_F_ANY_ALIGNMENT; + fd_prog = bpf_verify_program(prog_type, prog, prog_len, pflags, "GPL", 0, bpf_vlog, sizeof(bpf_vlog), 1); expected_ret = unpriv && test->result_unpriv != UNDEF ? @@ -14286,28 +14290,27 @@ static void do_test_single(struct bpf_test *test, bool unpriv, expected_val = unpriv && test->retval_unpriv ? test->retval_unpriv : test->retval; - reject_from_alignment = fd_prog < 0 && - (test->flags & F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS) && - strstr(bpf_vlog, "misaligned"); -#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS - if (reject_from_alignment) { - printf("FAIL\nFailed due to alignment despite having efficient unaligned access: '%s'!\n", - strerror(errno)); - goto fail_log; - } -#endif + alignment_prevented_execution = 0; + if (expected_ret == ACCEPT) { - if (fd_prog < 0 && !reject_from_alignment) { + if (fd_prog < 0) { printf("FAIL\nFailed to load prog '%s'!\n", strerror(errno)); goto fail_log; } +#ifndef CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS + if (fd_prog >= 0 && + (test->flags & F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS)) { + alignment_prevented_execution = 1; + goto test_ok; + } +#endif } else { if (fd_prog >= 0) { printf("FAIL\nUnexpected success to load!\n"); goto fail_log; } - if (!strstr(bpf_vlog, expected_err) && !reject_from_alignment) { + if (!strstr(bpf_vlog, expected_err)) { printf("FAIL\nUnexpected error message!\n\tEXP: %s\n\tRES: %s\n", expected_err, bpf_vlog); goto fail_log; @@ -14335,9 +14338,12 @@ static void do_test_single(struct bpf_test *test, bool unpriv, goto fail_log; } } +#ifndef CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS +test_ok: +#endif (*passes)++; - printf("OK%s\n", reject_from_alignment ? - " (NOTE: reject due to unknown alignment)" : ""); + printf("OK%s\n", alignment_prevented_execution ? + " (NOTE: not executed due to unknown alignment)" : ""); close_fds: close(fd_prog); for (i = 0; i < MAX_NR_MAPS; i++) From 2acc5fd5b8c25df0de7f3c8b8e385f5c6f8202ec Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: David Miller Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 21:08:39 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 3/4] bpf: Make more use of 'any' alignment in test_verifier.c Use F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS in more tests where the expected result is REJECT. Signed-off-by: David S. Miller Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov --- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c index 1d1775faaf14..6bfd3242ea43 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c @@ -1823,6 +1823,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .errstr = "invalid bpf_context access", .result = REJECT, .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SK_MSG, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "direct packet read for SK_MSG", @@ -2215,6 +2216,8 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { }, .errstr = "invalid bpf_context access", .result = REJECT, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "check cb access: half, wrong type", @@ -3281,6 +3284,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .result = REJECT, .errstr = "R0 invalid mem access 'inv'", .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "raw_stack: skb_load_bytes, spilled regs corruption 2", @@ -3311,6 +3315,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .result = REJECT, .errstr = "R3 invalid mem access 'inv'", .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "raw_stack: skb_load_bytes, spilled regs + data", @@ -3810,6 +3815,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .errstr = "R2 invalid mem access 'inv'", .result = REJECT, .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "direct packet access: test16 (arith on data_end)", @@ -3993,6 +3999,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS, .result = REJECT, .errstr = "invalid access to packet, off=0 size=8, R5(id=1,off=0,r=0)", + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "direct packet access: test24 (x += pkt_ptr, 5)", @@ -5149,6 +5156,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .result = REJECT, .errstr = "invalid access to map value, value_size=64 off=-2 size=4", .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SKB, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "invalid cgroup storage access 5", @@ -5265,6 +5273,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .result = REJECT, .errstr = "invalid access to map value, value_size=64 off=-2 size=4", .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SKB, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "invalid per-cpu cgroup storage access 5", @@ -7206,6 +7215,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .errstr = "invalid mem access 'inv'", .result = REJECT, .result_unpriv = REJECT, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "map element value illegal alu op, 5", @@ -7228,6 +7238,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .fixup_map_hash_48b = { 3 }, .errstr = "R0 invalid mem access 'inv'", .result = REJECT, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "map element value is preserved across register spilling", @@ -9720,6 +9731,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .errstr = "R1 offset is outside of the packet", .result = REJECT, .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "XDP pkt read, pkt_end > pkt_data', good access", @@ -9758,6 +9770,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .errstr = "R1 offset is outside of the packet", .result = REJECT, .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "XDP pkt read, pkt_end > pkt_data', bad access 2", @@ -9776,6 +9789,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .errstr = "R1 offset is outside of the packet", .result = REJECT, .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "XDP pkt read, pkt_data' < pkt_end, good access", @@ -9814,6 +9828,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .errstr = "R1 offset is outside of the packet", .result = REJECT, .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "XDP pkt read, pkt_data' < pkt_end, bad access 2", @@ -9832,6 +9847,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .errstr = "R1 offset is outside of the packet", .result = REJECT, .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "XDP pkt read, pkt_end < pkt_data', good access", @@ -9886,6 +9902,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .errstr = "R1 offset is outside of the packet", .result = REJECT, .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "XDP pkt read, pkt_data' >= pkt_end, good access", @@ -9922,6 +9939,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .errstr = "R1 offset is outside of the packet", .result = REJECT, .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "XDP pkt read, pkt_data' >= pkt_end, bad access 2", @@ -9997,6 +10015,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .errstr = "R1 offset is outside of the packet", .result = REJECT, .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "XDP pkt read, pkt_data' <= pkt_end, good access", @@ -10053,6 +10072,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .errstr = "R1 offset is outside of the packet", .result = REJECT, .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "XDP pkt read, pkt_end <= pkt_data', good access", @@ -10089,6 +10109,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .errstr = "R1 offset is outside of the packet", .result = REJECT, .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "XDP pkt read, pkt_end <= pkt_data', bad access 2", @@ -10162,6 +10183,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .errstr = "R1 offset is outside of the packet", .result = REJECT, .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "XDP pkt read, pkt_data > pkt_meta', good access", @@ -10200,6 +10222,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .errstr = "R1 offset is outside of the packet", .result = REJECT, .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "XDP pkt read, pkt_data > pkt_meta', bad access 2", @@ -10218,6 +10241,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .errstr = "R1 offset is outside of the packet", .result = REJECT, .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "XDP pkt read, pkt_meta' < pkt_data, good access", @@ -10256,6 +10280,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .errstr = "R1 offset is outside of the packet", .result = REJECT, .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "XDP pkt read, pkt_meta' < pkt_data, bad access 2", @@ -10274,6 +10299,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .errstr = "R1 offset is outside of the packet", .result = REJECT, .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "XDP pkt read, pkt_data < pkt_meta', good access", @@ -10328,6 +10354,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .errstr = "R1 offset is outside of the packet", .result = REJECT, .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "XDP pkt read, pkt_meta' >= pkt_data, good access", @@ -10364,6 +10391,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .errstr = "R1 offset is outside of the packet", .result = REJECT, .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "XDP pkt read, pkt_meta' >= pkt_data, bad access 2", @@ -10439,6 +10467,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .errstr = "R1 offset is outside of the packet", .result = REJECT, .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "XDP pkt read, pkt_meta' <= pkt_data, good access", @@ -10495,6 +10524,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .errstr = "R1 offset is outside of the packet", .result = REJECT, .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "XDP pkt read, pkt_data <= pkt_meta', good access", @@ -10531,6 +10561,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .errstr = "R1 offset is outside of the packet", .result = REJECT, .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "XDP pkt read, pkt_data <= pkt_meta', bad access 2", @@ -10635,6 +10666,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { }, .result = REJECT, .errstr = "dereference of modified ctx ptr", + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "check deducing bounds from const, 8", @@ -10648,6 +10680,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { }, .result = REJECT, .errstr = "dereference of modified ctx ptr", + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "check deducing bounds from const, 9", @@ -11122,6 +11155,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .result = REJECT, .errstr = "R6 invalid mem access 'inv'", .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "calls: two calls with args", @@ -11987,6 +12021,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 12, 22 }, .result = REJECT, .errstr = "invalid access to map value, value_size=8 off=2 size=8", + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "calls: two calls that receive map_value via arg=ptr_stack_of_caller. test2", @@ -12130,6 +12165,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 12, 22 }, .result = REJECT, .errstr = "invalid access to map value, value_size=8 off=2 size=8", + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "calls: two calls that receive map_value_ptr_or_null via arg. test1", @@ -12301,6 +12337,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .result = ACCEPT, .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS, .retval = POINTER_VALUE, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "calls: pkt_ptr spill into caller stack 2", @@ -12332,6 +12369,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS, .errstr = "invalid access to packet", .result = REJECT, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "calls: pkt_ptr spill into caller stack 3", @@ -12434,6 +12472,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS, .errstr = "same insn cannot be used with different", .result = REJECT, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "calls: pkt_ptr spill into caller stack 6", @@ -12469,6 +12508,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS, .errstr = "R4 invalid mem access", .result = REJECT, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "calls: pkt_ptr spill into caller stack 7", @@ -12503,6 +12543,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS, .errstr = "R4 invalid mem access", .result = REJECT, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "calls: pkt_ptr spill into caller stack 8", @@ -12584,6 +12625,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS, .errstr = "invalid access to packet", .result = REJECT, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "calls: caller stack init to zero or map_value_or_null", @@ -12949,6 +12991,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .result = REJECT, .errstr = "BPF_XADD stores into R2 pkt is not allowed", .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "xadd/w check whether src/dst got mangled, 1", @@ -13435,6 +13478,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS, .errstr = "Unreleased reference", .result = REJECT, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "reference tracking: alloc, check, free in both subbranches", From 0a68632488aa0129ed530af9ae9e8573f5650812 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: David Miller Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 21:08:50 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 4/4] bpf: Apply F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS to more ACCEPT test cases. If a testcase has alignment problems but is expected to be ACCEPT, verify it using F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS too. Maybe in the future if we add some architecture specific code to elide the unaligned memory access warnings during the test, we can execute these as well. Signed-off-by: David S. Miller Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov --- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c index 6bfd3242ea43..c3b038f26ece 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c @@ -3918,6 +3918,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { }, .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS, .result = ACCEPT, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "direct packet access: test21 (x += pkt_ptr, 2)", @@ -3943,6 +3944,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { }, .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS, .result = ACCEPT, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "direct packet access: test22 (x += pkt_ptr, 3)", @@ -3973,6 +3975,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { }, .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS, .result = ACCEPT, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "direct packet access: test23 (x += pkt_ptr, 4)", @@ -4025,6 +4028,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { }, .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS, .result = ACCEPT, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "direct packet access: test25 (marking on <, good access)", @@ -7732,6 +7736,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .result = ACCEPT, .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS, .retval = 0 /* csum_diff of 64-byte packet */, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "helper access to variable memory: size = 0 not allowed on NULL (!ARG_PTR_TO_MEM_OR_NULL)", @@ -9694,6 +9699,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { }, .result = ACCEPT, .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "XDP pkt read, pkt_data' > pkt_end, bad access 1", @@ -9865,6 +9871,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { }, .result = ACCEPT, .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "XDP pkt read, pkt_end < pkt_data', bad access 1", @@ -9977,6 +9984,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { }, .result = ACCEPT, .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "XDP pkt read, pkt_end >= pkt_data', bad access 1", @@ -10034,6 +10042,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { }, .result = ACCEPT, .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "XDP pkt read, pkt_data' <= pkt_end, bad access 1", @@ -10146,6 +10155,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { }, .result = ACCEPT, .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "XDP pkt read, pkt_meta' > pkt_data, bad access 1", @@ -10317,6 +10327,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { }, .result = ACCEPT, .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "XDP pkt read, pkt_data < pkt_meta', bad access 1", @@ -10429,6 +10440,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { }, .result = ACCEPT, .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "XDP pkt read, pkt_data >= pkt_meta', bad access 1", @@ -10486,6 +10498,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { }, .result = ACCEPT, .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "XDP pkt read, pkt_meta' <= pkt_data, bad access 1", @@ -12405,6 +12418,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS, .result = ACCEPT, .retval = 1, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "calls: pkt_ptr spill into caller stack 4", @@ -12439,6 +12453,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS, .result = ACCEPT, .retval = 1, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "calls: pkt_ptr spill into caller stack 5", @@ -12584,6 +12599,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { }, .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS, .result = ACCEPT, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "calls: pkt_ptr spill into caller stack 9", @@ -13507,6 +13523,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { }, .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS, .result = ACCEPT, + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, { "reference tracking in call: free reference in subprog",