Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
between commit:
ca36960211eb ("bpf: allow xadd only on aligned memory")
from the bpf tree and commit:
23d191a82c13 ("bpf: add various jit test cases")
from the bpf-next tree.
I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
diff --cc tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
index 437c0b1c9d21,c987d3a2426f..000000000000
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
@@@ -11163,64 -11140,95 +11166,153 @@@ static struct bpf_test tests[] =
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACEPOINT,
},
+ {
+ "xadd/w check unaligned stack",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
+ BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_0, -8),
+ BPF_STX_XADD(BPF_W, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_0, -7),
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_10, -8),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .result = REJECT,
+ .errstr = "misaligned stack access off",
+ .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
+ },
+ {
+ "xadd/w check unaligned map",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0),
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8),
+ BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0),
+ BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0,
+ BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 1),
+ BPF_STX_XADD(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, 3),
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 3),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .fixup_map1 = { 3 },
+ .result = REJECT,
+ .errstr = "misaligned value access off",
+ .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
+ },
+ {
+ "xadd/w check unaligned pkt",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1,
+ offsetof(struct xdp_md, data)),
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_1,
+ offsetof(struct xdp_md, data_end)),
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 8),
+ BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JLT, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_3, 2),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 99),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JA, 0, 0, 6),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
+ BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_2, 0, 0),
+ BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_2, 3, 0),
+ BPF_STX_XADD(BPF_W, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_0, 1),
+ BPF_STX_XADD(BPF_W, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_0, 2),
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2, 1),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .result = REJECT,
+ .errstr = "BPF_XADD stores into R2 packet",
+ .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
+ },
+ {
+ "jit: lsh, rsh, arsh by 1",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 0xff),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_LSH, BPF_REG_1, 1),
+ BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_LSH, BPF_REG_1, 1),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_1, 0x3fc, 1),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_RSH, BPF_REG_1, 1),
+ BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_RSH, BPF_REG_1, 1),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_1, 0xff, 1),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ARSH, BPF_REG_1, 1),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_1, 0x7f, 1),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 2),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .result = ACCEPT,
+ .retval = 2,
+ },
+ {
+ "jit: mov32 for ldimm64, 1",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 2),
+ BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_1, 0xfeffffffffffffffULL),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_RSH, BPF_REG_1, 32),
+ BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_2, 0xfeffffffULL),
+ BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2, 1),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .result = ACCEPT,
+ .retval = 2,
+ },
+ {
+ "jit: mov32 for ldimm64, 2",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
+ BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_1, 0x1ffffffffULL),
+ BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_2, 0xffffffffULL),
+ BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2, 1),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 2),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .result = ACCEPT,
+ .retval = 2,
+ },
+ {
+ "jit: various mul tests",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_2, 0xeeff0d413122ULL),
+ BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_0, 0xfefefeULL),
+ BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_1, 0xefefefULL),
+ BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_MUL, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
+ BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2, 2),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_3, 0xfefefeULL),
+ BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_MUL, BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_1),
+ BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_2, 2),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ BPF_MOV32_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_2),
+ BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_0, 0xfefefeULL),
+ BPF_ALU32_REG(BPF_MUL, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
+ BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2, 2),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_3, 0xfefefeULL),
+ BPF_ALU32_REG(BPF_MUL, BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_1),
+ BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_2, 2),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_0, 0x952a7bbcULL),
+ BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_1, 0xfefefeULL),
+ BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_2, 0xeeff0d413122ULL),
+ BPF_ALU32_REG(BPF_MUL, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1),
+ BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_0, 2),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 2),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .result = ACCEPT,
+ .retval = 2,
+ },
+
};
static int probe_filter_length(const struct bpf_insn *fp)
On 02/26/2018 01:41 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
>
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
>
> between commit:
>
> ca36960211eb ("bpf: allow xadd only on aligned memory")
>
> from the bpf tree and commit:
>
> 23d191a82c13 ("bpf: add various jit test cases")
>
> from the bpf-next tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
Looks good, thanks!
Hi Dave,
On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 11:41:47 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
>
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
>
> between commit:
>
> ca36960211eb ("bpf: allow xadd only on aligned memory")
>
> from the bpf tree and commit:
>
> 23d191a82c13 ("bpf: add various jit test cases")
>
> from the bpf-next tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
>
> diff --cc tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> index 437c0b1c9d21,c987d3a2426f..000000000000
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> @@@ -11163,64 -11140,95 +11166,153 @@@ static struct bpf_test tests[] =
> .result = REJECT,
> .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACEPOINT,
> },
> + {
> + "xadd/w check unaligned stack",
> + .insns = {
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
> + BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_0, -8),
> + BPF_STX_XADD(BPF_W, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_0, -7),
> + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_10, -8),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + },
> + .result = REJECT,
> + .errstr = "misaligned stack access off",
> + .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
> + },
> + {
> + "xadd/w check unaligned map",
> + .insns = {
> + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0),
> + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
> + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8),
> + BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0),
> + BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0,
> + BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem),
> + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 1),
> + BPF_STX_XADD(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, 3),
> + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 3),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + },
> + .fixup_map1 = { 3 },
> + .result = REJECT,
> + .errstr = "misaligned value access off",
> + .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
> + },
> + {
> + "xadd/w check unaligned pkt",
> + .insns = {
> + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1,
> + offsetof(struct xdp_md, data)),
> + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_1,
> + offsetof(struct xdp_md, data_end)),
> + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2),
> + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 8),
> + BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JLT, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_3, 2),
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 99),
> + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JA, 0, 0, 6),
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
> + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_2, 0, 0),
> + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_2, 3, 0),
> + BPF_STX_XADD(BPF_W, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_0, 1),
> + BPF_STX_XADD(BPF_W, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_0, 2),
> + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2, 1),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + },
> + .result = REJECT,
> + .errstr = "BPF_XADD stores into R2 packet",
> + .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
> + },
> + {
> + "jit: lsh, rsh, arsh by 1",
> + .insns = {
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 0xff),
> + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_LSH, BPF_REG_1, 1),
> + BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_LSH, BPF_REG_1, 1),
> + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_1, 0x3fc, 1),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_RSH, BPF_REG_1, 1),
> + BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_RSH, BPF_REG_1, 1),
> + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_1, 0xff, 1),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ARSH, BPF_REG_1, 1),
> + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_1, 0x7f, 1),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 2),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + },
> + .result = ACCEPT,
> + .retval = 2,
> + },
> + {
> + "jit: mov32 for ldimm64, 1",
> + .insns = {
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 2),
> + BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_1, 0xfeffffffffffffffULL),
> + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_RSH, BPF_REG_1, 32),
> + BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_2, 0xfeffffffULL),
> + BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2, 1),
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + },
> + .result = ACCEPT,
> + .retval = 2,
> + },
> + {
> + "jit: mov32 for ldimm64, 2",
> + .insns = {
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
> + BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_1, 0x1ffffffffULL),
> + BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_2, 0xffffffffULL),
> + BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2, 1),
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 2),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + },
> + .result = ACCEPT,
> + .retval = 2,
> + },
> + {
> + "jit: various mul tests",
> + .insns = {
> + BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_2, 0xeeff0d413122ULL),
> + BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_0, 0xfefefeULL),
> + BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_1, 0xefefefULL),
> + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_MUL, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
> + BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2, 2),
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_3, 0xfefefeULL),
> + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_MUL, BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_1),
> + BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_2, 2),
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + BPF_MOV32_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_2),
> + BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_0, 0xfefefeULL),
> + BPF_ALU32_REG(BPF_MUL, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
> + BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2, 2),
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_3, 0xfefefeULL),
> + BPF_ALU32_REG(BPF_MUL, BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_1),
> + BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_2, 2),
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_0, 0x952a7bbcULL),
> + BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_1, 0xfefefeULL),
> + BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_2, 0xeeff0d413122ULL),
> + BPF_ALU32_REG(BPF_MUL, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1),
> + BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_0, 2),
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 2),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + },
> + .result = ACCEPT,
> + .retval = 2,
> + },
> +
> };
>
> static int probe_filter_length(const struct bpf_insn *fp)
This conflict is now between the bfp tree and the net-next tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell