Add back 'test 3' from Xu Kuohai, which was previously removed because BPF verifier signed range deduction was not precise enough. With last patch in this series applied this test no longer fails. Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAADnVQJ2bE0cAp8DNh1m6VqphNvWLkq8p=gwyPbbcdopaKcCCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ Signed-off-by: Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@xxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@xxxxxxxx> --- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_lsm.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_lsm.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_lsm.c index 32e5e779cb96..08251c517154 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_lsm.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_lsm.c @@ -26,6 +26,22 @@ __naked int errno_zero_retval_test2(void *ctx) ::: __clobber_all); } +SEC("lsm/file_alloc_security") +__description("lsm bpf prog with -4095~0 retval. test 3") +__success +__naked int errno_zero_retval_test3(void *ctx) +{ + asm volatile ( + "call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];" + "r0 <<= 63;" + "r0 s>>= 63;" + "r0 &= -13;" + "exit;" + : + : __imm(bpf_get_prandom_u32) + : __clobber_all); +} + SEC("lsm/file_mprotect") __description("lsm bpf prog with -4095~0 retval. test 4") __failure __msg("R0 has smin=-4096 smax=-4096 should have been in [-4095, 0]") -- 2.47.0
