On Fri, 2023-02-17 at 21:37 +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote: [...] > Ptal, looks like BPF CI is complaining: > > https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/4205832876/jobs/7298488977 > Yes, I messed up comments in the asm blocks when replaced '\n\' line endings with '\' before sending the patch w/o re-testing. Sorry about that. I'm waiting for answers from Andrii and will resend the patch-set. --- Here is how the tests should look like: /* Read an uninitialized value from stack at a fixed offset */ SEC("socket") __naked int read_uninit_stack_fixed_off(void *ctx) { asm volatile (" \ r0 = 0; \ /* force stack depth to be 128 */ \ *(u64*)(r10 - 128) = r1; \ r1 = *(u8 *)(r10 - 8 ); \ r0 += r1; \ r1 = *(u8 *)(r10 - 11); \ r1 = *(u8 *)(r10 - 13); \ r1 = *(u8 *)(r10 - 15); \ r1 = *(u16*)(r10 - 16); \ r1 = *(u32*)(r10 - 32); \ r1 = *(u64*)(r10 - 64); \ /* read from a spill of a wrong size, it is a separate \ * branch in check_stack_read_fixed_off() \ */ \ *(u32*)(r10 - 72) = r1; \ r1 = *(u64*)(r10 - 72); \ r0 = 0; \ exit; \ " ::: __clobber_all); } /* Read an uninitialized value from stack at a variable offset */ SEC("socket") __naked int read_uninit_stack_var_off(void *ctx) { asm volatile (" \ call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32]; \ /* force stack depth to be 64 */ \ *(u64*)(r10 - 64) = r0; \ r0 = -r0; \ /* give r0 a range [-31, -1] */ \ if r0 s<= -32 goto exit_%=; \ if r0 s>= 0 goto exit_%=; \ /* access stack using r0 */ \ r1 = r10; \ r1 += r0; \ r2 = *(u8*)(r1 + 0); \ exit_%=: r0 = 0; \ exit; \ " : : __imm(bpf_get_prandom_u32) : __clobber_all); } [...]
