Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <d99dcc9a-c50e-b482-0a09-7040a2031a08@windriver.com>
Date:   Thu, 25 Aug 2022 13:11:42 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.11.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 025/287] selftests/bpf: Fix test_align verifier log
 patterns
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
References: <20220823080100.268827165@linuxfoundation.org>
 <20220823080101.125479106@linuxfoundation.org> <YwZOQv/dqReP8XfU@myrica>
From:   Ovidiu Panait <ovidiu.panait@windriver.com>
In-Reply-To: <YwZOQv/dqReP8XfU@myrica>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount: 1
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0: =?utf-8?B?VXNXS3J1Q3Q0ZVUvZlgwMHcwSmZZeE9vbGFvb2lhejlNMHFzZFNSZ1BsdlVN?=
 =?utf-8?B?ek5GSUJkR0g5b2RmL2pGUzF0Ny9DcnlldDQ3KzhjUk4xTDR1REFjUmJtWkxp?=
 =?utf-8?B?SHBUY1FKcUxSUUt3VndDdzgxUnNubUJxamd1Z2o4Tmh2aXlVY25KV2UrcE1x?=
 =?utf-8?B?NDhhSzZZN1A2NWcxMEZiR3R0cVN4dVBKdEkydjgrMUtWNEtCS3ozYlVnK2M4?=
 =?utf-8?B?bWt3YjdER1VwS3dHUktlYzc0R0QrNTFhc2NPN1FrSVhtYitPZ2hzSXdHdzEv?=
 =?utf-8?B?eWNNVDFPQUhiT25UaGl5ajJvMG9OaWt0RlByWGtZdEh1N1ZTOFNmUEx6Yk1D?=
 =?utf-8?B?YmRxOGJVaHJIa3ZTV1czcGxKaWpsTW5hZjBwSTR0TWRJVnpMM1V2b0VLRTZm?=
 =?utf-8?B?MkpGTG1pTlFlRUNHbnZUR2o0WjJQK05tV1IzSHprRTNOenBNek4zS202Y1lh?=
 =?utf-8?B?TitXQmVRUS93VE4zOVFIM3dIZ1cwZnBBd0krQloyUjRiZ2tJaUd0ZktydW1j?=
 =?utf-8?B?TWRvWnA5STVNMkdhaTg3K2lDRHhsaFVYTHBnaFhvZkRRNGlYSk4xNjBKVlVH?=
 =?utf-8?B?RTFkQXlUVGFmWkVPd2tkNmJzdkt3ZHVIVkw2VGpXMmR3OWRQVEM3cW01Qlhk?=
 =?utf-8?B?QjB3akJ5TjRxSDlCSHRDVUFDL1VRbjlSQlRab2lieGVOOWtMVEMwWTExTlhB?=
 =?utf-8?B?OG56dmpBNmpJRmdnNkFKNENFM1A0UmQ5cXJabHFPWXhYWlVTVDVjeFViV0Vl?=
 =?utf-8?B?NVc1Q2xLa29zNVI4N1R3aDNRcFVuYVUyRlB2Y2pMRHk2VDNWZ25BSVQ2YWVq?=
 =?utf-8?B?cWVHdTVvamxjOGVuYkNmUkhsaFRJcnZPY2pHdmx2dGp6K0dvcC92Vk5JQkZJ?=
 =?utf-8?B?ZkZISUZHdXdOeitKRmVIVFVRbU5aSFVIVkhVK1FCUnJ6NTl4VnhwK3d0WEpO?=
 =?utf-8?B?T283RlNWb3FNS0hsVExBd2J0OUxqaFJVR3lheEJKdjI5b1BKSXlTQ2xkV05X?=
 =?utf-8?B?MEJST3lncE5UMjVtd3E2aXdRbXZGb0JOUHYwQ1lTVHBsNEt0ZTdScERyaU8y?=
 =?utf-8?B?a2p6NFlLQVhBMjhYMm1FUnB6NTRHTG5hN2hGVVF4VXRnTXBKZnk4ZUgwV0Y3?=
 =?utf-8?B?OVhETWxTN2pwanJ3aHViU3VUUTVGTXFLOXhHT2JSNzJzZ2FMSWxQSGw0RWd5?=
 =?utf-8?B?STJhelhRSndsUXV6cVRYRk5CMVBuNEtxcVl0YlZPb2YvZlNaempZd1hKWHdE?=
 =?utf-8?B?Q3hoemliOFF2aGdadGtHcjRDMVZBbkdUVEQwV3FmV3kzUmFXd1MwbGJpcHU1?=
 =?utf-8?B?ZEVnK2JHL2RjMUJlSUZQK0ZRcy9Mdmg1Y3g5ZXZVTkRJbkV1YnRHQmdyZWZn?=
 =?utf-8?B?U3VlNGdFWTVoMFRqcUhRelR3Qi9sdzlRY0s4RU1XMkR3L0puNmFQY1R4L3Y5?=
 =?utf-8?B?NmFyMUQwS28xcTBiSXFaNUVFbkQxV0s2NWJFWmI0YVJIaGpKMEZtdWF1bHV1?=
 =?utf-8?B?VjVRN1VIQ1JYN2Nia0djOGNNM3hrd1NQVUM0S3hyaVVtS2psV1doc216TTFJ?=
 =?utf-8?B?K2VLSlBibnJPTkc1STI0MlQrZElLbDg5Ri9GSWJJM1NTRFdxSUdycXVyRTRj?=
 =?utf-8?B?TmZVOWJJMGpzaUhkYUVRMnp4elpwQ3pXZW51ZXhFclZFUmVOVjJyaEpNVWFr?=
 =?utf-8?B?WW9MYjRROFRBV2JLS3BoSmZ1bjFlcGlzVTdCTzBsTUUxRmVQVjM2NlRrSzh0?=
 =?utf-8?B?Y0dOdmFBdEJEcHE1UWwyZkxseW9yTmgvNXRVbEFuWGVaTkFrejFlcWdTbzFy?=
 =?utf-8?B?UWVlcVlwdmRZN0FDSGdsMjhzMDNaNFhheHVwMzkwUUtuOVRadldqUXJGL0l4?=
 =?utf-8?B?bjdYL3ZRdjJ5V3dHR21TdEd2VldxeFlySTlDYUVxVno2eG13VHRPelc1T2s0?=
 =?utf-8?B?dFhHOXQ0UThQOXVQbnRodCtnZjkvV2Qya0NiWWt0aDExK0ZWV0pMRnptZEov?=
 =?utf-8?B?Tmk2b1Q0bzlJQVVyMlVQVTkvazFkQU5TRzc1bFl4TVc1ZHc0V2VyWjJrRWNP?=
 =?utf-8?B?Y3BHME1vYVFrMDFtbEtmZDBDbHc2Z3VUME5xRWZmQTlIdlNxYWdRSDNxL2Zs?=
 =?utf-8?B?Ulo1eVIvZDdUK213SkxWTjdXaGc1T2JTaEF3SjJYdHUwY3lKdENZNGZXSUFt?=
 =?utf-8?B?c0E9PQ==?=
X-OriginatorOrg: windriver.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: dfb555d4-4450-4390-8cd1-08da86828fbc
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: DM4PR11MB5327.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Aug 2022 10:14:14.4371
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 8ddb2873-a1ad-4a18-ae4e-4644631433be
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-MailboxType: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-UserPrincipalName: iBQBnOQXvLvljKZNeXPsmuQBJB6ixSW9m2pHtCtLdJdgopnx9cFIUWRGuMT1vuOF3umUVUev+ShoWFDxMxLtUkvyivnU5lL1oxiJGtyUVh8=
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SN6PR11MB3087
X-Proofpoint-GUID: I7rx1dv_aXy4FCQCahUiV4vV_8i9gZJy
X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: I7rx1dv_aXy4FCQCahUiV4vV_8i9gZJy
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard
 engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.895,Hydra:6.0.517,FMLib:17.11.122.1
 definitions=2022-08-25_05,2022-08-22_02,2022-06-22_01
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501
 adultscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0
 lowpriorityscore=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 impostorscore=0
 clxscore=1015 malwarescore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx
 scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2207270000 definitions=main-2208250040
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
        DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,
        SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE,URIBL_BLOCKED
        autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
        lindbergh.monkeyblade.net
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi Jean-Philippe,

On 24.08.2022 19:13, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> [Please note: This e-mail is from an EXTERNAL e-mail address]
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:23:14AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> From: Ovidiu Panait <ovidiu.panait@windriver.com>
>>
>> From: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>
>>
>> commit 5366d2269139ba8eb6a906d73a0819947e3e4e0a upstream.
>>
>> Commit 294f2fc6da27 ("bpf: Verifer, adjust_scalar_min_max_vals to always
>> call update_reg_bounds()") changed the way verifier logs some of its state,
>> adjust the test_align accordingly. Where possible, I tried to not copy-paste
>> the entire log line and resorted to dropping the last closing brace instead.
>>
>> Fixes: 294f2fc6da27 ("bpf: Verifer, adjust_scalar_min_max_vals to always call update_reg_bounds()")
>> Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200515194904.229296-1-sdf@google.com
>> [OP: adjust for 4.19 selftests]
>> Signed-off-by: Ovidiu Panait <ovidiu.panait@windriver.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> I believe this one shouldn't be applied as-is either, only partially. See
> https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20220824144327.277365-1-jean-philippe@linaro.org/
>
> Ovidiu, do you want to resend this one with only the fixes for "bpf:
> Verifer, adjust_scalar_min_max_vals to always call update_reg_bounds()"?

Yes, I will resend the whole patchset with the selftests properly fixed.


Thanks,
Ovidiu
> Thanks,
> Jean
>
>
>> ---
>>   tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c |   41 +++++++++++++++----------------
>>   1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>>
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c
>> @@ -359,15 +359,15 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
>>                         * is still (4n), fixed offset is not changed.
>>                         * Also, we create a new reg->id.
>>                         */
>> -                     {29, "R5_w=pkt(id=4,off=18,r=0,umax_value=2040,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc))"},
>> +                     {29, "R5_w=pkt(id=4,off=18,r=0,umax_value=2040,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc)"},
>>                        /* At the time the word size load is performed from R5,
>>                         * its total fixed offset is NET_IP_ALIGN + reg->off (18)
>>                         * which is 20.  Then the variable offset is (4n), so
>>                         * the total offset is 4-byte aligned and meets the
>>                         * load's requirements.
>>                         */
>> -                     {33, "R4=pkt(id=4,off=22,r=22,umax_value=2040,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc))"},
>> -                     {33, "R5=pkt(id=4,off=18,r=22,umax_value=2040,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc))"},
>> +                     {33, "R4=pkt(id=4,off=22,r=22,umax_value=2040,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc)"},
>> +                     {33, "R5=pkt(id=4,off=18,r=22,umax_value=2040,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc)"},
>>                },
>>        },
>>        {
>> @@ -410,15 +410,15 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
>>                        /* Adding 14 makes R6 be (4n+2) */
>>                        {9, "R6_w=inv(id=0,umin_value=14,umax_value=1034,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc))"},
>>                        /* Packet pointer has (4n+2) offset */
>> -                     {11, "R5_w=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=0,umin_value=14,umax_value=1034,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc))"},
>> -                     {13, "R4=pkt(id=1,off=4,r=0,umin_value=14,umax_value=1034,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc))"},
>> +                     {11, "R5_w=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=0,umin_value=14,umax_value=1034,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc)"},
>> +                     {13, "R4=pkt(id=1,off=4,r=0,umin_value=14,umax_value=1034,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.
>>                         */
>> -                     {15, "R5=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=4,umin_value=14,umax_value=1034,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc))"},
>> +                     {15, "R5=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=4,umin_value=14,umax_value=1034,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc)"},
>>                        /* Newly read value in R6 was shifted left by 2, so has
>>                         * known alignment of 4.
>>                         */
>> @@ -426,15 +426,15 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
>>                        /* Added (4n) to packet pointer's (4n+2) var_off, giving
>>                         * another (4n+2).
>>                         */
>> -                     {19, "R5_w=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=0,umin_value=14,umax_value=2054,var_off=(0x2; 0xffc))"},
>> -                     {21, "R4=pkt(id=2,off=4,r=0,umin_value=14,umax_value=2054,var_off=(0x2; 0xffc))"},
>> +                     {19, "R5_w=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=0,umin_value=14,umax_value=2054,var_off=(0x2; 0xffc)"},
>> +                     {21, "R4=pkt(id=2,off=4,r=0,umin_value=14,umax_value=2054,var_off=(0x2; 0xffc)"},
>>                        /* 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.
>>                         */
>> -                     {23, "R5=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=4,umin_value=14,umax_value=2054,var_off=(0x2; 0xffc))"},
>> +                     {23, "R5=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=4,umin_value=14,umax_value=2054,var_off=(0x2; 0xffc)"},
>>                },
>>        },
>>        {
>> @@ -469,16 +469,16 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
>>                .matches = {
>>                        {4, "R5_w=pkt_end(id=0,off=0,imm=0)"},
>>                        /* (ptr - ptr) << 2 == unknown, (4n) */
>> -                     {6, "R5_w=inv(id=0,smax_value=9223372036854775804,umax_value=18446744073709551612,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffffffffffc))"},
>> +                     {6, "R5_w=inv(id=0,smax_value=9223372036854775804,umax_value=18446744073709551612,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffffffffffc)"},
>>                        /* (4n) + 14 == (4n+2).  We blow our bounds, because
>>                         * the add could overflow.
>>                         */
>> -                     {7, "R5=inv(id=0,var_off=(0x2; 0xfffffffffffffffc))"},
>> +                     {7, "R5=inv(id=0,smin_value=-9223372036854775806,smax_value=9223372036854775806,umin_value=2,umax_value=18446744073709551614,var_off=(0x2; 0xfffffffffffffffc)"},
>>                        /* Checked s>=0 */
>> -                     {9, "R5=inv(id=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372036854775806,var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffffffffffc))"},
>> +                     {9, "R5=inv(id=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372034707292158,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fffffff7ffffffc)"},
>>                        /* packet pointer + nonnegative (4n+2) */
>> -                     {11, "R6_w=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372036854775806,var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffffffffffc))"},
>> -                     {13, "R4=pkt(id=1,off=4,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372036854775806,var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffffffffffc))"},
>> +                     {11, "R6_w=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372034707292158,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fffffff7ffffffc)"},
>> +                     {13, "R4=pkt(id=1,off=4,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372034707292158,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fffffff7ffffffc)"},
>>                        /* NET_IP_ALIGN + (4n+2) == (4n), alignment is fine.
>>                         * We checked the bounds, but it might have been able
>>                         * to overflow if the packet pointer started in the
>> @@ -486,7 +486,7 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
>>                         * So we did not get a 'range' on R6, and the access
>>                         * attempt will fail.
>>                         */
>> -                     {15, "R6=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372036854775806,var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffffffffffc))"},
>> +                     {15, "R6=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372034707292158,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fffffff7ffffffc)"},
>>                }
>>        },
>>        {
>> @@ -528,7 +528,7 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
>>                        /* New unknown value in R7 is (4n) */
>>                        {11, "R7_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"},
>>                        /* Subtracting it from R6 blows our unsigned bounds */
>> -                     {12, "R6=inv(id=0,smin_value=-1006,smax_value=1034,var_off=(0x2; 0xfffffffffffffffc))"},
>> +                     {12, "R6=inv(id=0,smin_value=-1006,smax_value=1034,umin_value=2,umax_value=18446744073709551614,var_off=(0x2; 0xfffffffffffffffc)"},
>>                        /* Checked s>= 0 */
>>                        {14, "R6=inv(id=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=1034,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc))"},
>>                        /* At the time the word size load is performed from R5,
>> @@ -537,7 +537,8 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
>>                         * the total offset is 4-byte aligned and meets the
>>                         * load's requirements.
>>                         */
>> -                     {20, "R5=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=4,umin_value=2,umax_value=1034,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc))"},
>> +                     {20, "R5=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=4,umin_value=2,umax_value=1034,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc)"},
>> +
>>                },
>>        },
>>        {
>> @@ -579,18 +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; 0x7fc))"},
>> +                     {16, "R5_w=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=1082,var_off=(0x2; 0xfffffffc)"},
>>                        /* 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; 0x7fc))"},
>> +                     {20, "R5=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=4,umin_value=2,umax_value=1082,var_off=(0x2; 0xfffffffc)"},
>>                },
>>        },
>>   };
>>
>>
>>