On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 4:45 PM Hao Luo <haoluo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Commit 4976b718c355 ("bpf: Introduce pseudo_btf_id") switched
> the order of check_subprogs() and resolve_pseudo_ldimm() in
> the verifier. Now an empty prog and the prog of a single
> invalid ldimm expect to see the error "last insn is not an
> exit or jmp" instead, because the check for subprogs comes
> first. Fix the expection of the error message.
>
> Tested:
> # ./test_verifier
> Summary: 1130 PASSED, 538 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
> and the full set of bpf selftests.
>
> Fixes: 4976b718c355 ("bpf: Introduce pseudo_btf_id")
> Signed-off-by: Hao Luo <haoluo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/basic.c | 2 +-
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/ld_imm64.c | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/basic.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/basic.c
> index b8d18642653a..de84f0d57082 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/basic.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/basic.c
> @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
> "empty prog",
> .insns = {
> },
> - .errstr = "unknown opcode 00",
> + .errstr = "last insn is not an exit or jmp",
in this case the new message makes more sense, so this is a good change
> .result = REJECT,
> },
> {
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/ld_imm64.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/ld_imm64.c
> index 3856dba733e9..f300ba62edd0 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/ld_imm64.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/ld_imm64.c
> @@ -55,7 +55,7 @@
> .insns = {
> BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_LD | BPF_IMM | BPF_DW, 0, 0, 0, 0),
> },
> - .errstr = "invalid bpf_ld_imm64 insn",
> + .errstr = "last insn is not an exit or jmp",
but this completely defeats the purpose of the test; better add
BPF_EXIT_INSN() after ldimm64 instruction to actually get to
validation of ldimm64
> .result = REJECT,
> },
> {
> --
> 2.28.0.806.g8561365e88-goog
>
