| Message ID | 20190515134731.12611-2-krzesimir@kinvolk.io |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Delegated to: | BPF Maintainers |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [bpf,v1,1/3] selftests/bpf: Test correctness of narrow 32bitread on 64bit field | expand |
On 05/15/2019 03:47 PM, Krzesimir Nowak wrote: > Test the correctness of the 32bit narrow reads by reading both halves > of the 64 bit field and doing a binary or on them to see if we get the > original value. > > This isn't really tested - the program is not being run, because > BPF_PROG_TYPE_PERF_EVENT is not supported by bpf_test_run_prog. One option could be to add actual support for BPF_PROG_TYPE_PERF_EVENT to test_verifier where the program gets actually triggered, and the result stored in a map value that the test case reads out for checking the result against the expected one. Recently added something similar for LRU maps in the test suite, that shouldn't be too complex. Thanks, Daniel > Signed-off-by: Krzesimir Nowak <krzesimir@kinvolk.io> > --- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/var_off.c | 15 +++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/var_off.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/var_off.c > index 8504ac937809..2668819dcc85 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/var_off.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/var_off.c > @@ -246,3 +246,18 @@ > .result = ACCEPT, > .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_LWT_IN, > }, > +{ > + "32bit loads of a 64bit field (both least and most significant words)", > + .insns = { > + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_4, BPF_REG_1, offsetof(struct bpf_perf_event_data, sample_period)), > + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_5, BPF_REG_1, offsetof(struct bpf_perf_event_data, sample_period) + 4), > + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_1, offsetof(struct bpf_perf_event_data, sample_period)), > + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_LSH, BPF_REG_4, 32), > + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_OR, BPF_REG_4, BPF_REG_5), > + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_XOR, BPF_REG_4, BPF_REG_6), > + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_4), > + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), > + }, > + .result = ACCEPT, > + .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_PERF_EVENT, > +}, >
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/var_off.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/var_off.c index 8504ac937809..2668819dcc85 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/var_off.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/var_off.c @@ -246,3 +246,18 @@ .result = ACCEPT, .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_LWT_IN, }, +{ + "32bit loads of a 64bit field (both least and most significant words)", + .insns = { + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_4, BPF_REG_1, offsetof(struct bpf_perf_event_data, sample_period)), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_5, BPF_REG_1, offsetof(struct bpf_perf_event_data, sample_period) + 4), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_1, offsetof(struct bpf_perf_event_data, sample_period)), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_LSH, BPF_REG_4, 32), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_OR, BPF_REG_4, BPF_REG_5), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_XOR, BPF_REG_4, BPF_REG_6), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_4), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = ACCEPT, + .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_PERF_EVENT, +},
Test the correctness of the 32bit narrow reads by reading both halves of the 64 bit field and doing a binary or on them to see if we get the original value. This isn't really tested - the program is not being run, because BPF_PROG_TYPE_PERF_EVENT is not supported by bpf_test_run_prog. Signed-off-by: Krzesimir Nowak <krzesimir@kinvolk.io> --- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/var_off.c | 15 +++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)