On 8/27/24 12:48 PM, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@xxxxxxxxxx>
This patch tests the epilogue patching when the main prog has
multiple BPF_EXIT. The verifier should have patched the 2nd (and
later) BPF_EXIT with a BPF_JA that goes back to the earlier
patched epilogue instructions.
Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
.../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/pro_epilogue.c | 2 +
.../selftests/bpf/progs/epilogue_exit.c | 78 +++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 80 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/epilogue_exit.c
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/pro_epilogue.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/pro_epilogue.c
index b2e467cf15fe..58c18529a802 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/pro_epilogue.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/pro_epilogue.c
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
#include "pro_epilogue_kfunc.skel.h"
#include "epilogue_tailcall.skel.h"
#include "pro_epilogue_goto_start.skel.h"
+#include "epilogue_exit.skel.h"
struct st_ops_args {
int a;
@@ -47,6 +48,7 @@ void test_pro_epilogue(void)
RUN_TESTS(pro_epilogue_subprog);
RUN_TESTS(pro_epilogue_kfunc);
RUN_TESTS(pro_epilogue_goto_start);
+ RUN_TESTS(epilogue_exit);
if (test__start_subtest("tailcall"))
test_tailcall();
}
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/epilogue_exit.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/epilogue_exit.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..8c03256c7491
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/epilogue_exit.c
@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+/* Copyright (c) 2024 Meta Platforms, Inc. and affiliates. */
+
+#include <vmlinux.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
+#include "bpf_misc.h"
+#include "../bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h"
+#include "../bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod_kfunc.h"
+
+char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
+
+__success
+/* save __u64 *ctx to stack */
+__xlated("0: *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = r1")
+/* main prog */
+__xlated("1: r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 +0)")
+__xlated("2: r2 = *(u32 *)(r1 +0)")
+__xlated("3: if r2 == 0x0 goto pc+10")
+__xlated("4: r0 = 0")
+__xlated("5: *(u32 *)(r1 +0) = 0")
+/* epilogue */
+__xlated("6: r1 = *(u64 *)(r10 -8)")
+__xlated("7: r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 +0)")
+__xlated("8: r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +0)")
+__xlated("9: w6 += 10000")
+__xlated("10: *(u32 *)(r1 +0) = r6")
+__xlated("11: w0 = w6")
+__xlated("12: w0 *= 2")
+__xlated("13: exit")
+/* 2nd part of the main prog after the first exit */
+__xlated("14: *(u32 *)(r1 +0) = 1")
+__xlated("15: r0 = 1")
+/* Clear the r1 to ensure it does not have
+ * off-by-1 error and ensure it jumps back to the
+ * beginning of epilogue which initializes
+ * the r1 with the ctx ptr.
+ */
+__xlated("16: r1 = 0")
+__xlated("17: gotol pc-12")
+SEC("struct_ops/test_epilogue_exit")
+__naked int test_epilogue_exit(void)
+{
+ asm volatile (
+ "r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 +0);"
+ "r2 = *(u32 *)(r1 +0);"
+ "if r2 == 0 goto +3;"
+ "r0 = 0;"
+ "*(u32 *)(r1 + 0) = 0;"
llvm17 cannot take "*(u32 *)(r1 +0) = 0".
Instead:
r3 = 0;
*(u32 *)(r1 + 0) = r3;
The above solved the llvm17 error:
https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/10586206183/job/29334690461
However, there is still a zext with s390 that added extra insn and failed the
__xlated check. will try an adjustment in the tests to avoid the zext.
pw-bot: cr
+ "exit;"
+ "*(u32 *)(r1 + 0) = 1;"
+ "r0 = 1;"
+ "r1 = 0;"
+ "exit;"
+ ::: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+SEC(".struct_ops.link")
+struct bpf_testmod_st_ops epilogue_exit = {
+ .test_epilogue = (void *)test_epilogue_exit,
+};
+
+SEC("syscall")
+__retval(20000)
+int syscall_epilogue_exit0(void *ctx)
+{
+ struct st_ops_args args = { .a = 1 };
+
+ return bpf_kfunc_st_ops_test_epilogue(&args);
+}
+
+SEC("syscall")
+__retval(20002)
+int syscall_epilogue_exit1(void *ctx)
+{
+ struct st_ops_args args = {};
+
+ return bpf_kfunc_st_ops_test_epilogue(&args);
+}
