On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 03:19:01AM +0530, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/calls.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/calls.c
> index 2e03decb11b6..743ed34c1238 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/calls.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/calls.c
> @@ -138,6 +138,26 @@
> { "bpf_kfunc_call_memb_release", 8 },
> },
> },
> +{
> + "calls: invalid kfunc call: don't match first member type when passed to release kfunc",
> + .insns = {
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
> + BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL, 0, 0),
> + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0),
> + BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL, 0, 0),
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + },
> + .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
> + .result = REJECT,
> + .errstr = "kernel function bpf_kfunc_call_memb1_release args#0 expected pointer",
> + .fixup_kfunc_btf_id = {
> + { "bpf_kfunc_call_memb_acquire", 1 },
> + { "bpf_kfunc_call_memb1_release", 5 },
> + },
> +},
Please add negative C tests as well.
Consider using SEC("?tc") logic added by commit 0d7fefebea552
and put a bunch of bpf progs that should fail to load in one .c
