Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210412153754.235500-1-revest@chromium.org> <20210412153754.235500-7-revest@chromium.org>
 <CAEf4BzZ6cLio0ZZEkc5iYp9yWg3Fc1ZORBTr85TdoqF-sRU3DQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEf4BzZ6cLio0ZZEkc5iYp9yWg3Fc1ZORBTr85TdoqF-sRU3DQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org>
Date:   Wed, 14 Apr 2021 11:21:22 +0200
Message-ID: <CABRcYm+v7xC8WsxYu6BoiEX1vhQSVSX5U-LyUnevGt1tFud5tA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 6/6] selftests/bpf: Add a series of tests for bpf_snprintf
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Cc:     bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
        Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>, KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
        Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@chromium.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 1:21 AM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 8:38 AM Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > This exercises most of the format specifiers.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org>
> > Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
> > ---
>
> As I mentioned on another patch, we probably need negative tests even
> more than positive ones.

Agreed.

> I think an easy and nice way to do this is to have a separate BPF
> skeleton where fmt string and arguments are provided through read-only
> global variables, so that user-space can re-use the same BPF skeleton
> to simulate multiple cases. BPF program itself would just call
> bpf_snprintf() and store the returned result.

Ah, great idea! I was thinking of having one skeleton for each but it
would be a bit much indeed.

Because the format string needs to be in a read only map though, I
hope it can be modified from userspace before loading. I'll try it out
and see :) if it doesn't work I'll just use more skeletons

> Whether we need to validate the verifier log is up to debate (though
> it's not that hard to do by overriding libbpf_print_fn() callback),
> I'd be ok at least knowing that some bad format strings are rejected
> and don't crash the kernel.

Alright :)

>
> >  .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/snprintf.c       | 81 +++++++++++++++++++
> >  .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_snprintf.c       | 74 +++++++++++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 155 insertions(+)
> >  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/snprintf.c
> >  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_snprintf.c
> >
>
> [...]