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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220830161716.754078-1-roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> <20220830161716.754078-13-roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220830161716.754078-13-roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com>
From:   Joanne Koong <joannelkoong@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 30 Aug 2022 09:54:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJnrk1ZzLkc_TBpqejSOYOpLOVgtPJty2X_3v8i4UgDLR+59VQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 12/12] selftests/bpf: Add verifier tests for dynamic
 pointers parameters in kfuncs
To:     Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com>
Cc:     ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org,
        martin.lau@linux.dev, song@kernel.org, yhs@fb.com,
        john.fastabend@gmail.com, kpsingh@kernel.org, sdf@google.com,
        haoluo@google.com, jolsa@kernel.org, mykolal@fb.com,
        dhowells@redhat.com, jarkko@kernel.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        mingo@redhat.com, paul@paul-moore.com, jmorris@namei.org,
        serge@hallyn.com, shuah@kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
        keyrings@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        deso@posteo.net, memxor@gmail.com,
        Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 9:22 AM Roberto Sassu
<roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
>
> From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
>
> Add verifier tests to ensure that only supported dynamic pointer types are
> accepted, that the passed argument is actually a dynamic pointer, and that
> the passed argument is a pointer to the stack.
>
> Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
> ---
>  .../bpf/verifier/kfunc_dynptr_param.c         | 72 +++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 72 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/kfunc_dynptr_param.c
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/kfunc_dynptr_param.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/kfunc_dynptr_param.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..8abb8d566321
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/kfunc_dynptr_param.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
> +{
> +       "kfunc dynamic pointer param: type not supported",
> +       .insns = {
> +       BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -16, 0),
> +       BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_10),
> +       BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_6, -16),
> +       BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0),
> +       BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 8),
> +       BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_3, 0),
> +       BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_4, BPF_REG_6),
> +       BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, BPF_FUNC_ringbuf_reserve_dynptr),
> +       BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_6),
> +       BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_6),
> +       BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_3, 0),
> +       BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL, 0, 0),
> +       BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_6),
> +       BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 0),
> +       BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, BPF_FUNC_ringbuf_discard_dynptr),
> +       BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
> +       BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> +       },
> +       .fixup_map_ringbuf = { 3 },
> +       .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM,
> +       .kfunc = "bpf",
> +       .expected_attach_type = BPF_LSM_MAC,
> +       .flags = BPF_F_SLEEPABLE,
> +       .errstr = "arg#0 pointer type STRUCT bpf_dynptr_kern points to unsupported dynamic pointer type",
> +       .result = REJECT,
> +       .fixup_kfunc_btf_id = {
> +               { "bpf_verify_pkcs7_signature", 12 },
> +       },
> +},
> +{
> +       "kfunc dynamic pointer param: arg not a dynamic pointer",
> +       .insns = {
> +       BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0),
> +       BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10),
> +       BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -8),
> +       BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1),
> +       BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_3, 0),
> +       BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL, 0, 0),
> +       BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> +       },
> +       .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM,
> +       .kfunc = "bpf",
> +       .expected_attach_type = BPF_LSM_MAC,
> +       .flags = BPF_F_SLEEPABLE,
> +       .errstr = "arg#0 pointer type STRUCT bpf_dynptr_kern must be valid and initialized",
> +       .result = REJECT,
> +       .fixup_kfunc_btf_id = {
> +               { "bpf_verify_pkcs7_signature", 5 },
> +       },
> +},
> +{
> +       "kfunc dynamic pointer param: arg not a pointer to stack",
> +       .insns = {
> +       BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 0),
> +       BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 0),
> +       BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_3, 0),
> +       BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL, 0, 0),
> +       BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> +       },
> +       .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM,
> +       .kfunc = "bpf",
> +       .expected_attach_type = BPF_LSM_MAC,
> +       .flags = BPF_F_SLEEPABLE,
> +       .errstr = "arg#0 pointer type STRUCT bpf_dynptr_kern not to stack",
> +       .result = REJECT,
> +       .fixup_kfunc_btf_id = {
> +               { "bpf_verify_pkcs7_signature", 3 },
> +       },
> +},

Is this logic testable in plain C BPF code? I tend to side with Andrii
[0] about finding these kinds of tests hard to maintain and read.

[0] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAEf4BzZJvr+vcO57TK94GM7B5=k2wPgAub4BBJf1Uz0xNpCPVg@mail.gmail.com/

> --
> 2.25.1
>