On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 4:44 PM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 4:38 PM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 2:54 PM Andrii Nakryiko
> > <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 2:16 PM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > sk_priority & sk_mark are writable, the rest is readonly.
> > > >
> > > > Add new ldx_offset fixups to lookup the offset of struct field.
> > > > Allow using test.kfunc regardless of prog_type.
> > > >
> > > > One interesting thing here is that the verifier doesn't
> > > > really force me to add NULL checks anywhere :-/
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 54 ++++++++++++++++++-
> > > > .../selftests/bpf/verifier/lsm_cgroup.c | 34 ++++++++++++
> > > > 2 files changed, 87 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/lsm_cgroup.c
> > > >
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/lsm_cgroup.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/lsm_cgroup.c
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 000000000000..af0efe783511
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/lsm_cgroup.c
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
> > > > +#define SK_WRITABLE_FIELD(tp, field, size, res) \
> > > > +{ \
> > > > + .descr = field, \
> > > > + .insns = { \
> > > > + /* r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 + 0) */ \
> > > > + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_1, 0), \
> > > > + /* r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 + offsetof(struct socket, sk)) */ \
> > > > + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_1, 0), \
> > > > + /* r2 = *(u64 *)(r1 + offsetof(struct sock, <field>)) */ \
> > > > + BPF_LDX_MEM(size, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, 0), \
> > > > + /* *(u64 *)(r1 + offsetof(struct sock, <field>)) = r2 */ \
> > > > + BPF_STX_MEM(size, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2, 0), \
> > > > + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1), \
> > > > + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), \
> > > > + }, \
> > > > + .result = res, \
> > > > + .errstr = res ? "no write support to 'struct sock' at off" : "", \
> > > > + .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM, \
> > > > + .expected_attach_type = BPF_LSM_CGROUP, \
> > > > + .kfunc = "socket_post_create", \
> > > > + .fixup_ldx = { \
> > > > + { "socket", "sk", 1 }, \
> > > > + { tp, field, 2 }, \
> > > > + { tp, field, 3 }, \
> > > > + }, \
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +SK_WRITABLE_FIELD("sock_common", "skc_family", BPF_H, REJECT),
> > > > +SK_WRITABLE_FIELD("sock", "sk_sndtimeo", BPF_DW, REJECT),
> > > > +SK_WRITABLE_FIELD("sock", "sk_priority", BPF_W, ACCEPT),
> > > > +SK_WRITABLE_FIELD("sock", "sk_mark", BPF_W, ACCEPT),
> > > > +SK_WRITABLE_FIELD("sock", "sk_pacing_rate", BPF_DW, REJECT),
> > > > +
> > >
> > > have you tried writing it as C program and adding the test to
> > > test_progs? Does something not work there?
> >
> > Seems like it should work, I don't see any issues with writing 5
> > programs to test each field.
> > But test_verified still feels like a better fit? Any reason in
> > particular you'd prefer test_progs over test_verifier?
>
> Adding that fixup_ldx->strct special handling didn't feel like the
> best fit, tbh. test_progs is generally much nicer to deal with in
> terms of CI and in terms of comprehending what's going on and
> supporting the code longer term.
This is not new, right? We already have a bunch of fixup_xxx things.
I can try to move this into test_progs in largely the same manner if
you prefer, having a C file per field seems like an overkill.
