Re: [External] Re: [PATCH bpf-next] selftests/bpf: Fix rare segfault in sock_fields prog test

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 2022-06-21 at 19:00 +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 6/21/22 9:01 AM, Jörn-Thorben Hinz wrote:
> > test_sock_fields__detach() got called with a null pointer here when
> > one
> > of the CHECKs or ASSERTs up to the
> > test_sock_fields__open_and_load()
> > call resulted in a jump to the "done" label.
> > 
> > A skeletons *__detach() is not safe to call with a null pointer,
> > though.
> > This led to a segfault.
> > 
> > Go the easy route and only call test_sock_fields__destroy() which
> > is
> > null-pointer safe and includes detaching.
> > 
> > Came across this while looking[1] to introduce the usage of
> > bpf_tcp_helpers.h (included in progs/test_sock_fields.c) together
> > with
> > vmlinux.h.
> > 
> > [1] 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/629bc069dd807d7ac646f836e9dca28bbc1108e2.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > 
> > Fixes: 8f50f16ff39d ("selftests/bpf: Extend verifier and bpf_sock
> > tests for dst_port loads")
> > Signed-off-by: Jörn-Thorben Hinz <jthinz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sock_fields.c | 1 -
> >   1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sock_fields.c
> > b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sock_fields.c
> > index 9d211b5c22c4..7d23166c77af 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sock_fields.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sock_fields.c
> > @@ -394,7 +394,6 @@ void serial_test_sock_fields(void)
> >         test();
> >   
> >   done:
> > -       test_sock_fields__detach(skel);
> >         test_sock_fields__destroy(skel);
> >         if (child_cg_fd >= 0)
> >                 close(child_cg_fd);
> > 
> 
> Great catch! I think we have similar detach & destroy pattern in a
> number
> of places in selftests.
Did a quick grep for other __detach(skel) calls yesterday. I didn’t
find similar places that were too obviously problematic.

> 
> Should we rather just move the label, like:
Sure, if you would prefer that? Let me know.

Since this test—unlike others—does not attach the skel twice (like
prog_tests/test_lsm.c), or reads/asserts values from the skel’s data
sections between detach and destroy (like prog_tests/timer.c), my
thought was to just let __destroy() do all the clean-up.

> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sock_fields.c
> b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sock_fields.c
> index 9d211b5c22c4..e8a947241e37 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sock_fields.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sock_fields.c
> @@ -393,8 +393,8 @@ void serial_test_sock_fields(void)
> 
>          test();
> 
> -done:
>          test_sock_fields__detach(skel);
> +done:
>          test_sock_fields__destroy(skel);
>          if (child_cg_fd >= 0)
>                  close(child_cg_fd);





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux