The test added is a simplified reproducer from syzbot report [1]. If verifier does not insert checkpoint somewhere inside the loop, verification of the program would take a very long time. This would happen because mark_chain_precision() for register r7 would constantly trace jump history of the loop back, processing many iterations for each mark_chain_precision() call. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/670429f6.050a0220.49194.0517.GAE@xxxxxxxxxx/ Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@xxxxxxxxx> --- .../bpf/progs/verifier_search_pruning.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_search_pruning.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_search_pruning.c index 5a14498d352f..f40e57251e94 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_search_pruning.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_search_pruning.c @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@ /* Converted from tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/search_pruning.c */ #include <linux/bpf.h> +#include <../../../include/linux/filter.h> #include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h> #include "bpf_misc.h" @@ -336,4 +337,26 @@ l0_%=: r1 = 42; \ : __clobber_all); } +/* Without checkpoint forcibly inserted at the back-edge a loop this + * test would take a very long time to verify. + */ +SEC("kprobe") +__failure __log_level(4) +__msg("BPF program is too large.") +__naked void short_loop1(void) +{ + asm volatile ( + " r7 = *(u16 *)(r1 +0);" + "1: r7 += 0x1ab064b9;" + " .8byte %[jset];" /* same as 'if r7 & 0x702000 goto 1b;' */ + " r7 &= 0x1ee60e;" + " r7 += r1;" + " if r7 s> 0x37d2 goto +0;" + " r0 = 0;" + " exit;" + : + : __imm_insn(jset, BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSET, BPF_REG_7, 0x702000, -2)) + : __clobber_all); +} + char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL"; -- 2.46.2
