Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-22232-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240110125317.13742-1-sunhao.th@gmail.com> <20240110125317.13742-2-sunhao.th@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240110125317.13742-2-sunhao.th@gmail.com>
From: Hao Sun <sunhao.th@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 14:30:08 +0100
Message-ID: <CACkBjsaWfo9h7H0O4wUWJ2qrAsw0XkJSUiKOC9H_FkOivvq=5A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add tests for alu on PTR_TO_FLOW_KEYS
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: willemb@google.com, ast@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 1:53=E2=80=AFPM Hao Sun <sunhao.th@gmail.com> wrote=
:
>
> Add two cases for PTR_TO_FLOW_KEYS alu. One for rejecting alu with
> variable offset, another for fixed offset.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hao Sun <sunhao.th@gmail.com>
> ---
>  .../bpf/progs/verifier_value_illegal_alu.c    | 37 +++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 37 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_value_illegal_alu=
c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_value_illegal_alu.c
> index 71814a753216..49089361c98a 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_value_illegal_alu.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_value_illegal_alu.c
> @@ -146,4 +146,41 @@ l0_%=3D:     exit;                                  =
         \
>         : __clobber_all);
>  }
>
> +SEC("flow_dissector")
> +__description("flow_keys illegal alu op with variable offset")
> +__failure
> +__msg("R7 pointer arithmetic on flow_keys prohibited")
> +__naked void flow_keys_illegal_variable_offset_alu(void)
> +{
> +       asm volatile("                                                  \
> +       r6 =3D r1;                                                       =
         \
> +       r7 =3D *(u64*)(r6 + %[flow_keys_off]);    \
> +       r8 =3D 8;                                                        =
         \
> +       r8 /=3D 1;                                                       =
         \
> +       r8 &=3D 8;                                                       =
         \
> +       r7 +=3D r8;                                                      =
         \
> +       r0 =3D *(u64*)(r7 + 0);                                   \
> +       exit;                                                            =
       \
> +"      :
> +       : __imm_const(flow_keys_off, offsetof(struct __sk_buff, flow_keys=
))
> +       : __clobber_all);
> +}
> +
> +SEC("flow_dissector")
> +__description("flow_keys valid alu op with fixed offset")
> +__success
> +__naked void flow_keys_legal_fixed_offset_alu(void)
> +{
> +       asm volatile("                                                  \
> +       r6 =3D r1;                                                       =
         \
> +       r7 =3D *(u64*)(r6 + %[flow_keys_off]);    \
> +       r8 =3D 8;                                                        =
         \
> +       r7 +=3D r8;                                                      =
         \
> +       r0 =3D *(u64*)(r7 + 0);                                   \
> +       exit;                                                            =
       \
> +"      :
> +       : __imm_const(flow_keys_off, offsetof(struct __sk_buff, flow_keys=
))
> +       : __clobber_all);
> +}
> +

The format here is strange and should be fixed later.
I'm also curious, why only fixed-off is used in check_flow_keys_access()
for validation?