Re: bpf selftest failed in 5.4.210 kernel

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

 



Hi Jean-Philippe,

On 8/23/22 21:34, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
[Please note: This e-mail is from an EXTERNAL e-mail address]

On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:31:40AM +0300, RAJESH DASARI wrote:
Sorry for the confusion, results are indeed confusing to me .
If I try with git bisect I get

git bisect bad
9d6f67365d9cdb389fbdac2bb5b00e59e345930e is the first bad commit
For me bisecting points to:

(A)     7c1134c7da99 ("bpf: Verifer, adjust_scalar_min_max_vals to always call update_reg_bounds()")

This changes the BPF verifier output and (as expected) breaks the
test_align selftest. That's why in the same series [1] another patch fixed
test_align. In v5.4.y, that patch is:

(B)     6a9b3f0f3bad ("selftests/bpf: Fix test_align verifier log patterns")

Unfortunately commit (B) addresses multiple verifier changes, not solely
(A). My guess is those changes were in series [1] and haven't been
backported to v5.4. So multiple solutions:

* Partially revert (B), only keeping the changes needed by (A)
* Revert (A) and (B)
* Add the missing commits that (B) also addresses

I don't know which, I suppose it depends on the intent behind backporting
(A). Ovidiu?

The intent behind backporting 7c1134c7da99 ("bpf: Verifer, adjust_scalar_min_max_vals to always call update_reg_bounds()") was to fix CVE-2021-4159.

If we revert test 11 changes brought in by 6a9b3f0f3bad ("selftests/bpf: Fix test_align verifier log patterns") backport, all test_align testcases pass on my side:

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c
index c9c9bdce9d6d..4726e3eca9b2 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c
@@ -580,18 +580,18 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
                        /* Adding 14 makes R6 be (4n+2) */
                        {11, "R6_w=inv(id=0,umin_value=14,umax_value=74,var_off=(0x2; 0x7c))"},                         /* Subtracting from packet pointer overflows ubounds */ -                       {13, "R5_w=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=8,umin_value=18446744073709551542,umax_value=18446744073709551602,var_off=(0xffffffffffffff82; 0x7c)"}, +                       {13, "R5_w=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=8,umin_value=18446744073709551542,umax_value=18446744073709551602,var_off=(0xffffffffffffff82; 0x7c))"},
                        /* New unknown value in R7 is (4n), >= 76 */
                        {15, "R7_w=inv(id=0,umin_value=76,umax_value=1096,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc))"},                         /* Adding it to packet pointer gives nice bounds again */ -                       {16, "R5_w=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=1082,var_off=(0x2; 0xfffffffc)"}, +                       {16, "R5_w=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=1082,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc))"},                         /* At the time the word size load is performed from R5,                          * its total fixed offset is NET_IP_ALIGN + reg->off (0)                          * which is 2.  Then the variable offset is (4n+2), so
                         * the total offset is 4-byte aligned and meets the
                         * load's requirements.
                         */
-                       {20, "R5=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=4,umin_value=2,umax_value=1082,var_off=(0x2; 0xfffffffc)"}, +                       {20, "R5=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=4,umin_value=2,umax_value=1082,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc))"},
                },
        },
 };

root@intel-x86-64:~/bpf# ./test_align
Test   0: mov ... PASS
Test   1: shift ... PASS
Test   2: addsub ... PASS
Test   3: mul ... PASS
Test   4: unknown shift ... PASS
Test   5: unknown mul ... PASS
Test   6: packet const offset ... PASS
Test   7: packet variable offset ... PASS
Test   8: packet variable offset 2 ... PASS
Test   9: dubious pointer arithmetic ... PASS
Test  10: variable subtraction ... PASS
Test  11: pointer variable subtraction ... PASS
Results: 12 pass 0 fail

In any case 6098562ed9df ("selftests/bpf: Fix "dubious pointer arithmetic"
test") can be reverted, I can send that once we figure out the rest.

In my testing, with [1] and [2] applied, but without [3], the following test_align selftest would still fail:

Test   9: dubious pointer arithmetic ... Failed to find match 9: R5=inv(id=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372034707292158,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fffffff7ffffffc)


[1] 7c1134c7da99 ("bpf: Verifer, adjust_scalar_min_max_vals to always call update_reg_bounds()")

[2] 6a9b3f0f3bad ("selftests/bpf: Fix test_align verifier log patterns")

[3] 6098562ed9df ("selftests/bpf: Fix "dubious pointer arithmetic" test")

Thanks,
Jean

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/158507130343.15666.8018068546764556975.stgit@john-Precision-5820-Tower/

If I  try to test myself with multiple test scenarios(I have mentioned
in  the previous mails) for the bad commits , I see that bad commits
are
bpf: Verifer, adjust_scalar_min_max_vals to always call update_reg_bounds()
selftests/bpf: Fix test_align verifier log patterns
selftests/bpf: Fix "dubious pointer arithmetic" test

Thanks,
Rajesh Dasari.

On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:04 AM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 10:23:02PM +0300, RAJESH DASARI wrote:
Hi,

Please find the test scenarios which I have tried.

Test 1:

Running system Kernel version (tag/commit) :  v5.4.210
Kernel source code checkout : v5.4.210
test_align test case execution status : Failure

Test 2:

Running system Kernel version (tag/commit) : v5.4.210
Kernel source code checkout : v5.4.209
test_align test case execution status : Failure

Test 3:

Running system Kernel version (tag/commit) : v5.4.209
Kernel source code checkout : v5.4.209
test_align test case execution status : Success

Test 4:

Running system Kernel version (tag/commit) : ACPI: APEI: Better fix to
avoid spamming the console with old error logs ( Kernel compiled at
this commit  and system is booted with this change)
Kernel source code checkout : v5.4.210 but reverted selftests/bpf: Fix
test_align verifier log patterns and selftests/bpf: Fix "dubious
pointer arithmetic" test. If I revert only the Fix "dubious pointer
arithmetic" test, the testcase still fails.
test_align test case execution status : Success

Test 5:

Running system Kernel version (tag/commit) :  v5.4.210 but reverted
commit (bpf: Verifer, adjust_scalar_min_max_vals to always call
update_reg_bounds() )
Kernel source code checkout : v5.4.210 but reverted selftests/bpf: Fix
test_align verifier log patterns and selftests/bpf: Fix "dubious
pointer arithmetic" test.
test_align test case execution status : Success

Test 6 :

Running system Kernel version (tag/commit) : bpf: Test_verifier, #70
error message updates for 32-bit right shift( Kernel compiled at this
commit  and system is booted with this change)
Kernel source code checkout : v5.4.209 or v5.4.210
test_align test case execution status : Failure
I'm sorry, but I don't know what to do with this report at all.

Is there some failure somewhere?  If you use 'git bisect' do you find
the offending commit?

confused,

greg k-h



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Development Newbies]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux