On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 6:27 PM Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 2:03 AM Andrii Nakryiko
> <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 5:18 AM Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > .../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
> > >
