diff mbox series

[bpf-next,v1,6/6] selftests/bpf: Add tests for kfunc register offset checks

Message ID 20220301065745.1634848-7-memxor@gmail.com (mailing list archive)
State Superseded
Delegated to: BPF
Headers show
Series Fixes for bad PTR_TO_BTF_ID offset | expand

Checks

Context Check Description
netdev/tree_selection success Clearly marked for bpf-next
netdev/fixes_present success Fixes tag not required for -next series
netdev/subject_prefix success Link
netdev/cover_letter success Series has a cover letter
netdev/patch_count success Link
netdev/header_inline success No static functions without inline keyword in header files
netdev/build_32bit fail Errors and warnings before: 25 this patch: 26
netdev/cc_maintainers warning 10 maintainers not CCed: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org kuba@kernel.org kpsingh@kernel.org john.fastabend@gmail.com kafai@fb.com songliubraving@fb.com shuah@kernel.org yhs@fb.com netdev@vger.kernel.org davem@davemloft.net
netdev/build_clang fail Errors and warnings before: 42 this patch: 43
netdev/module_param success Was 0 now: 0
netdev/verify_signedoff success Signed-off-by tag matches author and committer
netdev/verify_fixes success No Fixes tag
netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn fail Errors and warnings before: 30 this patch: 31
netdev/checkpatch warning WARNING: line length of 92 exceeds 80 columns
netdev/kdoc success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/source_inline success Was 0 now: 0
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-PR fail PR summary
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next fail VM_Test

Commit Message

Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi March 1, 2022, 6:57 a.m. UTC 
Include a few verifier selftests that test against the problems being
fixed by previous commits, i.e. release kfunc always require
PTR_TO_BTF_ID fixed and var_off to be 0, and negative offset is not
permitted and returns a helpful error message.

Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
---
 net/bpf/test_run.c                           | 11 +++
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/calls.c | 82 ++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 93 insertions(+)

Comments

kernel test robot March 1, 2022, 11:40 a.m. UTC | #1 
Hi Kumar,

Thank you for the patch! Perhaps something to improve:

[auto build test WARNING on bpf-next/master]

url:    https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Kumar-Kartikeya-Dwivedi/Fixes-for-bad-PTR_TO_BTF_ID-offset/20220301-150010
base:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next.git master
config: s390-randconfig-r021-20220301 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20220301/202203011937.wMLpkfU3-lkp@intel.com/config)
compiler: clang version 15.0.0 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project d271fc04d5b97b12e6b797c6067d3c96a8d7470e)
reproduce (this is a W=1 build):
        wget https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/lkp-tests/master/sbin/make.cross -O ~/bin/make.cross
        chmod +x ~/bin/make.cross
        # install s390 cross compiling tool for clang build
        # apt-get install binutils-s390x-linux-gnu
        # https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commit/37a0d686bce3b71b14a17ae57364ec45d1405b9e
        git remote add linux-review https://github.com/0day-ci/linux
        git fetch --no-tags linux-review Kumar-Kartikeya-Dwivedi/Fixes-for-bad-PTR_TO_BTF_ID-offset/20220301-150010
        git checkout 37a0d686bce3b71b14a17ae57364ec45d1405b9e
        # save the config file to linux build tree
        mkdir build_dir
        COMPILER_INSTALL_PATH=$HOME/0day COMPILER=clang make.cross W=1 O=build_dir ARCH=s390 SHELL=/bin/bash net/bpf/

If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag as appropriate
Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>

All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):

           writesl(PCI_IOBASE + addr, buffer, count);
                   ~~~~~~~~~~ ^
   net/bpf/test_run.c:201:14: warning: no previous prototype for function 'bpf_fentry_test1' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
   int noinline bpf_fentry_test1(int a)
                ^
   net/bpf/test_run.c:201:1: note: declare 'static' if the function is not intended to be used outside of this translation unit
   int noinline bpf_fentry_test1(int a)
   ^
   static 
   net/bpf/test_run.c:208:14: warning: no previous prototype for function 'bpf_fentry_test2' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
   int noinline bpf_fentry_test2(int a, u64 b)
                ^
   net/bpf/test_run.c:208:1: note: declare 'static' if the function is not intended to be used outside of this translation unit
   int noinline bpf_fentry_test2(int a, u64 b)
   ^
   static 
   net/bpf/test_run.c:213:14: warning: no previous prototype for function 'bpf_fentry_test3' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
   int noinline bpf_fentry_test3(char a, int b, u64 c)
                ^
   net/bpf/test_run.c:213:1: note: declare 'static' if the function is not intended to be used outside of this translation unit
   int noinline bpf_fentry_test3(char a, int b, u64 c)
   ^
   static 
   net/bpf/test_run.c:218:14: warning: no previous prototype for function 'bpf_fentry_test4' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
   int noinline bpf_fentry_test4(void *a, char b, int c, u64 d)
                ^
   net/bpf/test_run.c:218:1: note: declare 'static' if the function is not intended to be used outside of this translation unit
   int noinline bpf_fentry_test4(void *a, char b, int c, u64 d)
   ^
   static 
   net/bpf/test_run.c:223:14: warning: no previous prototype for function 'bpf_fentry_test5' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
   int noinline bpf_fentry_test5(u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, u64 e)
                ^
   net/bpf/test_run.c:223:1: note: declare 'static' if the function is not intended to be used outside of this translation unit
   int noinline bpf_fentry_test5(u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, u64 e)
   ^
   static 
   net/bpf/test_run.c:228:14: warning: no previous prototype for function 'bpf_fentry_test6' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
   int noinline bpf_fentry_test6(u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, void *e, u64 f)
                ^
   net/bpf/test_run.c:228:1: note: declare 'static' if the function is not intended to be used outside of this translation unit
   int noinline bpf_fentry_test6(u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, void *e, u64 f)
   ^
   static 
   net/bpf/test_run.c:237:14: warning: no previous prototype for function 'bpf_fentry_test7' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
   int noinline bpf_fentry_test7(struct bpf_fentry_test_t *arg)
                ^
   net/bpf/test_run.c:237:1: note: declare 'static' if the function is not intended to be used outside of this translation unit
   int noinline bpf_fentry_test7(struct bpf_fentry_test_t *arg)
   ^
   static 
   net/bpf/test_run.c:242:14: warning: no previous prototype for function 'bpf_fentry_test8' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
   int noinline bpf_fentry_test8(struct bpf_fentry_test_t *arg)
                ^
   net/bpf/test_run.c:242:1: note: declare 'static' if the function is not intended to be used outside of this translation unit
   int noinline bpf_fentry_test8(struct bpf_fentry_test_t *arg)
   ^
   static 
   net/bpf/test_run.c:247:14: warning: no previous prototype for function 'bpf_modify_return_test' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
   int noinline bpf_modify_return_test(int a, int *b)
                ^
   net/bpf/test_run.c:247:1: note: declare 'static' if the function is not intended to be used outside of this translation unit
   int noinline bpf_modify_return_test(int a, int *b)
   ^
   static 
   net/bpf/test_run.c:253:14: warning: no previous prototype for function 'bpf_kfunc_call_test1' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
   u64 noinline bpf_kfunc_call_test1(struct sock *sk, u32 a, u64 b, u32 c, u64 d)
                ^
   net/bpf/test_run.c:253:1: note: declare 'static' if the function is not intended to be used outside of this translation unit
   u64 noinline bpf_kfunc_call_test1(struct sock *sk, u32 a, u64 b, u32 c, u64 d)
   ^
   static 
   net/bpf/test_run.c:258:14: warning: no previous prototype for function 'bpf_kfunc_call_test2' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
   int noinline bpf_kfunc_call_test2(struct sock *sk, u32 a, u32 b)
                ^
   net/bpf/test_run.c:258:1: note: declare 'static' if the function is not intended to be used outside of this translation unit
   int noinline bpf_kfunc_call_test2(struct sock *sk, u32 a, u32 b)
   ^
   static 
   net/bpf/test_run.c:263:24: warning: no previous prototype for function 'bpf_kfunc_call_test3' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
   struct sock * noinline bpf_kfunc_call_test3(struct sock *sk)
                          ^
   net/bpf/test_run.c:263:1: note: declare 'static' if the function is not intended to be used outside of this translation unit
   struct sock * noinline bpf_kfunc_call_test3(struct sock *sk)
   ^
   static 
   net/bpf/test_run.c:286:1: warning: no previous prototype for function 'bpf_kfunc_call_test_acquire' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
   bpf_kfunc_call_test_acquire(unsigned long *scalar_ptr)
   ^
   net/bpf/test_run.c:285:10: note: declare 'static' if the function is not intended to be used outside of this translation unit
   noinline struct prog_test_ref_kfunc *
            ^
            static 
   net/bpf/test_run.c:294:15: warning: no previous prototype for function 'bpf_kfunc_call_test_release' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
   noinline void bpf_kfunc_call_test_release(struct prog_test_ref_kfunc *p)
                 ^
   net/bpf/test_run.c:294:10: note: declare 'static' if the function is not intended to be used outside of this translation unit
   noinline void bpf_kfunc_call_test_release(struct prog_test_ref_kfunc *p)
            ^
            static 
>> net/bpf/test_run.c:298:15: warning: no previous prototype for function 'bpf_kfunc_call_memb_release' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
   noinline void bpf_kfunc_call_memb_release(struct prog_test_member *p)
                 ^
   net/bpf/test_run.c:298:10: note: declare 'static' if the function is not intended to be used outside of this translation unit
   noinline void bpf_kfunc_call_memb_release(struct prog_test_member *p)
            ^
            static 
   net/bpf/test_run.c:340:15: warning: no previous prototype for function 'bpf_kfunc_call_test_pass_ctx' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
   noinline void bpf_kfunc_call_test_pass_ctx(struct __sk_buff *skb)
                 ^
   net/bpf/test_run.c:340:10: note: declare 'static' if the function is not intended to be used outside of this translation unit
   noinline void bpf_kfunc_call_test_pass_ctx(struct __sk_buff *skb)
            ^
            static 
   net/bpf/test_run.c:344:15: warning: no previous prototype for function 'bpf_kfunc_call_test_pass1' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
   noinline void bpf_kfunc_call_test_pass1(struct prog_test_pass1 *p)
                 ^
   net/bpf/test_run.c:344:10: note: declare 'static' if the function is not intended to be used outside of this translation unit
   noinline void bpf_kfunc_call_test_pass1(struct prog_test_pass1 *p)
            ^
            static 
   net/bpf/test_run.c:348:15: warning: no previous prototype for function 'bpf_kfunc_call_test_pass2' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
   noinline void bpf_kfunc_call_test_pass2(struct prog_test_pass2 *p)
                 ^
   net/bpf/test_run.c:348:10: note: declare 'static' if the function is not intended to be used outside of this translation unit
   noinline void bpf_kfunc_call_test_pass2(struct prog_test_pass2 *p)
            ^
            static 
   net/bpf/test_run.c:352:15: warning: no previous prototype for function 'bpf_kfunc_call_test_fail1' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
   noinline void bpf_kfunc_call_test_fail1(struct prog_test_fail1 *p)
                 ^
   net/bpf/test_run.c:352:10: note: declare 'static' if the function is not intended to be used outside of this translation unit
   noinline void bpf_kfunc_call_test_fail1(struct prog_test_fail1 *p)
            ^
            static 
   net/bpf/test_run.c:356:15: warning: no previous prototype for function 'bpf_kfunc_call_test_fail2' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
   noinline void bpf_kfunc_call_test_fail2(struct prog_test_fail2 *p)
                 ^
   net/bpf/test_run.c:356:10: note: declare 'static' if the function is not intended to be used outside of this translation unit
   noinline void bpf_kfunc_call_test_fail2(struct prog_test_fail2 *p)
            ^
            static 
   net/bpf/test_run.c:360:15: warning: no previous prototype for function 'bpf_kfunc_call_test_fail3' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
   noinline void bpf_kfunc_call_test_fail3(struct prog_test_fail3 *p)
                 ^
   net/bpf/test_run.c:360:10: note: declare 'static' if the function is not intended to be used outside of this translation unit
   noinline void bpf_kfunc_call_test_fail3(struct prog_test_fail3 *p)
            ^
            static 
   net/bpf/test_run.c:364:15: warning: no previous prototype for function 'bpf_kfunc_call_test_mem_len_pass1' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
   noinline void bpf_kfunc_call_test_mem_len_pass1(void *mem, int mem__sz)
                 ^
   net/bpf/test_run.c:364:10: note: declare 'static' if the function is not intended to be used outside of this translation unit
   noinline void bpf_kfunc_call_test_mem_len_pass1(void *mem, int mem__sz)
            ^
            static 
   net/bpf/test_run.c:368:15: warning: no previous prototype for function 'bpf_kfunc_call_test_mem_len_fail1' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
   noinline void bpf_kfunc_call_test_mem_len_fail1(void *mem, int len)
                 ^
   net/bpf/test_run.c:368:10: note: declare 'static' if the function is not intended to be used outside of this translation unit
   noinline void bpf_kfunc_call_test_mem_len_fail1(void *mem, int len)
            ^
            static 
   net/bpf/test_run.c:372:15: warning: no previous prototype for function 'bpf_kfunc_call_test_mem_len_fail2' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
   noinline void bpf_kfunc_call_test_mem_len_fail2(u64 *mem, int len)
                 ^
   net/bpf/test_run.c:372:10: note: declare 'static' if the function is not intended to be used outside of this translation unit
   noinline void bpf_kfunc_call_test_mem_len_fail2(u64 *mem, int len)
            ^
            static 
   36 warnings generated.


vim +/bpf_kfunc_call_memb_release +298 net/bpf/test_run.c

   297	
 > 298	noinline void bpf_kfunc_call_memb_release(struct prog_test_member *p)
   299	{
   300	}
   301	

---
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service, Intel Corporation
https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/kbuild-all@lists.01.org
Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi March 1, 2022, 11:57 a.m. UTC | #2 
On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 05:10:31PM IST, kernel test robot wrote:
> Hi Kumar,
>
> Thank you for the patch! Perhaps something to improve:
>
> [auto build test WARNING on bpf-next/master]
>
> url:    https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Kumar-Kartikeya-Dwivedi/Fixes-for-bad-PTR_TO_BTF_ID-offset/20220301-150010
> base:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next.git master
> config: s390-randconfig-r021-20220301 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20220301/202203011937.wMLpkfU3-lkp@intel.com/config)
> compiler: clang version 15.0.0 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project d271fc04d5b97b12e6b797c6067d3c96a8d7470e)

The same warning is emitted on clang for all existing definitions, so I can
respin with a fix for the warning like we do for GCC, otherwise it can also
be a follow up patch.

> [...]

--
Kartikeya
Alexei Starovoitov March 2, 2022, 10:47 p.m. UTC | #3 
On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 3:57 AM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 05:10:31PM IST, kernel test robot wrote:
> > Hi Kumar,
> >
> > Thank you for the patch! Perhaps something to improve:
> >
> > [auto build test WARNING on bpf-next/master]
> >
> > url:    https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Kumar-Kartikeya-Dwivedi/Fixes-for-bad-PTR_TO_BTF_ID-offset/20220301-150010
> > base:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next.git master
> > config: s390-randconfig-r021-20220301 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20220301/202203011937.wMLpkfU3-lkp@intel.com/config)
> > compiler: clang version 15.0.0 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project d271fc04d5b97b12e6b797c6067d3c96a8d7470e)
>
> The same warning is emitted on clang for all existing definitions, so I can
> respin with a fix for the warning like we do for GCC, otherwise it can also
> be a follow up patch.

Separate patch is fine.
How do you plan on fixing it?
What is __diag_ignore equivalent for clang?
Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi March 2, 2022, 11:14 p.m. UTC | #4 
On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 04:17:25AM IST, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 3:57 AM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 05:10:31PM IST, kernel test robot wrote:
> > > Hi Kumar,
> > >
> > > Thank you for the patch! Perhaps something to improve:
> > >
> > > [auto build test WARNING on bpf-next/master]
> > >
> > > url:    https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Kumar-Kartikeya-Dwivedi/Fixes-for-bad-PTR_TO_BTF_ID-offset/20220301-150010
> > > base:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next.git master
> > > config: s390-randconfig-r021-20220301 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20220301/202203011937.wMLpkfU3-lkp@intel.com/config)
> > > compiler: clang version 15.0.0 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project d271fc04d5b97b12e6b797c6067d3c96a8d7470e)
> >
> > The same warning is emitted on clang for all existing definitions, so I can
> > respin with a fix for the warning like we do for GCC, otherwise it can also
> > be a follow up patch.
>
> Separate patch is fine.
> How do you plan on fixing it?
> What is __diag_ignore equivalent for clang?

Hmm, looks like I'll have to add those in include/linux/compiler-clang.h. Quick
local testing suggests it will work with _Pragma("clang diagnostic ignored ...").

--
Kartikeya
Alexei Starovoitov March 2, 2022, 11:20 p.m. UTC | #5 
On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 3:14 PM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 04:17:25AM IST, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 3:57 AM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 05:10:31PM IST, kernel test robot wrote:
> > > > Hi Kumar,
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for the patch! Perhaps something to improve:
> > > >
> > > > [auto build test WARNING on bpf-next/master]
> > > >
> > > > url:    https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Kumar-Kartikeya-Dwivedi/Fixes-for-bad-PTR_TO_BTF_ID-offset/20220301-150010
> > > > base:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next.git master
> > > > config: s390-randconfig-r021-20220301 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20220301/202203011937.wMLpkfU3-lkp@intel.com/config)
> > > > compiler: clang version 15.0.0 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project d271fc04d5b97b12e6b797c6067d3c96a8d7470e)
> > >
> > > The same warning is emitted on clang for all existing definitions, so I can
> > > respin with a fix for the warning like we do for GCC, otherwise it can also
> > > be a follow up patch.
> >
> > Separate patch is fine.
> > How do you plan on fixing it?
> > What is __diag_ignore equivalent for clang?
>
> Hmm, looks like I'll have to add those in include/linux/compiler-clang.h. Quick
> local testing suggests it will work with _Pragma("clang diagnostic ignored ...").

Make a generic llvm/gcc #define for
__diag_ignore(GCC, 8, "-Wmissing-prototypes" ?
We need it in two places so far.
Nathan Chancellor March 2, 2022, 11:26 p.m. UTC | #6 
On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 04:44:01AM +0530, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 04:17:25AM IST, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 3:57 AM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 05:10:31PM IST, kernel test robot wrote:
> > > > Hi Kumar,
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for the patch! Perhaps something to improve:
> > > >
> > > > [auto build test WARNING on bpf-next/master]
> > > >
> > > > url:    https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Kumar-Kartikeya-Dwivedi/Fixes-for-bad-PTR_TO_BTF_ID-offset/20220301-150010
> > > > base:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next.git master
> > > > config: s390-randconfig-r021-20220301 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20220301/202203011937.wMLpkfU3-lkp@intel.com/config)
> > > > compiler: clang version 15.0.0 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project d271fc04d5b97b12e6b797c6067d3c96a8d7470e)
> > >
> > > The same warning is emitted on clang for all existing definitions, so I can
> > > respin with a fix for the warning like we do for GCC, otherwise it can also
> > > be a follow up patch.
> >
> > Separate patch is fine.
> > How do you plan on fixing it?
> > What is __diag_ignore equivalent for clang?
> 
> Hmm, looks like I'll have to add those in include/linux/compiler-clang.h. Quick
> local testing suggests it will work with _Pragma("clang diagnostic ignored ...").

I have a diff that mirrors the GCC infrastructure, which should work for
this, feel free to copy it:

https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210310225240.4epj2mdmzt4vurr3@archlinux-ax161/

If you want to shut up the warning for all supported versions of clang,
switch 130000 for 110000 and __diag_clang_11() for __diag_clang_13().

Cheers,
Nathan
Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi March 2, 2022, 11:37 p.m. UTC | #7 
On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 04:56:37AM IST, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 04:44:01AM +0530, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 04:17:25AM IST, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 3:57 AM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 05:10:31PM IST, kernel test robot wrote:
> > > > > Hi Kumar,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for the patch! Perhaps something to improve:
> > > > >
> > > > > [auto build test WARNING on bpf-next/master]
> > > > >
> > > > > url:    https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Kumar-Kartikeya-Dwivedi/Fixes-for-bad-PTR_TO_BTF_ID-offset/20220301-150010
> > > > > base:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next.git master
> > > > > config: s390-randconfig-r021-20220301 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20220301/202203011937.wMLpkfU3-lkp@intel.com/config)
> > > > > compiler: clang version 15.0.0 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project d271fc04d5b97b12e6b797c6067d3c96a8d7470e)
> > > >
> > > > The same warning is emitted on clang for all existing definitions, so I can
> > > > respin with a fix for the warning like we do for GCC, otherwise it can also
> > > > be a follow up patch.
> > >
> > > Separate patch is fine.
> > > How do you plan on fixing it?
> > > What is __diag_ignore equivalent for clang?
> >
> > Hmm, looks like I'll have to add those in include/linux/compiler-clang.h. Quick
> > local testing suggests it will work with _Pragma("clang diagnostic ignored ...").
>
> I have a diff that mirrors the GCC infrastructure, which should work for
> this, feel free to copy it:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210310225240.4epj2mdmzt4vurr3@archlinux-ax161/
>
> If you want to shut up the warning for all supported versions of clang,
> switch 130000 for 110000 and __diag_clang_11() for __diag_clang_13().
>

That's great, Nathan! I'll add your Signed-off-by to it.

> Cheers,
> Nathan

--
Kartikeya
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/net/bpf/test_run.c b/net/bpf/test_run.c
index f08034500813..21e1c2d64f25 100644
--- a/net/bpf/test_run.c
+++ b/net/bpf/test_run.c
@@ -265,9 +265,14 @@  struct sock * noinline bpf_kfunc_call_test3(struct sock *sk)
 	return sk;
 }
 
+struct prog_test_member {
+	unsigned long c;
+};
+
 struct prog_test_ref_kfunc {
 	int a;
 	int b;
+	struct prog_test_member memb;
 	struct prog_test_ref_kfunc *next;
 };
 
@@ -290,6 +295,10 @@  noinline void bpf_kfunc_call_test_release(struct prog_test_ref_kfunc *p)
 {
 }
 
+noinline void bpf_kfunc_call_memb_release(struct prog_test_member *p)
+{
+}
+
 struct prog_test_pass1 {
 	int x0;
 	struct {
@@ -374,6 +383,7 @@  BTF_ID(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test2)
 BTF_ID(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test3)
 BTF_ID(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test_acquire)
 BTF_ID(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test_release)
+BTF_ID(func, bpf_kfunc_call_memb_release)
 BTF_ID(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test_pass_ctx)
 BTF_ID(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test_pass1)
 BTF_ID(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test_pass2)
@@ -391,6 +401,7 @@  BTF_SET_END(test_sk_acquire_kfunc_ids)
 
 BTF_SET_START(test_sk_release_kfunc_ids)
 BTF_ID(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test_release)
+BTF_ID(func, bpf_kfunc_call_memb_release)
 BTF_SET_END(test_sk_release_kfunc_ids)
 
 BTF_SET_START(test_sk_ret_null_kfunc_ids)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/calls.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/calls.c
index 0a8ea60c2a80..985183d1310a 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/calls.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/calls.c
@@ -115,6 +115,88 @@ 
 		{ "bpf_kfunc_call_test_release", 5 },
 	},
 },
+{
+	"calls: invalid kfunc call: reg->off must be zero when passed to release kfunc",
+	.insns = {
+	BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10),
+	BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -8),
+	BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, 0, 0),
+	BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL, 0, 0),
+	BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1),
+	BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+	BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_0, 8),
+	BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0),
+	BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL, 0, 0),
+	BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+	BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+	},
+	.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
+	.result = REJECT,
+	.errstr = "R1 with ref_obj_id=2 must have zero offset when passed to release kfunc",
+	.fixup_kfunc_btf_id = {
+		{ "bpf_kfunc_call_test_acquire", 3 },
+		{ "bpf_kfunc_call_memb_release", 8 },
+	},
+},
+{
+	"calls: invalid kfunc call: PTR_TO_BTF_ID with negative offset",
+	.insns = {
+	BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10),
+	BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -8),
+	BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, 0, 0),
+	BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL, 0, 0),
+	BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1),
+	BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+	BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0),
+	BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -4),
+	BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL, 0, 0),
+	BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+	BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+	},
+	.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
+	.fixup_kfunc_btf_id = {
+		{ "bpf_kfunc_call_test_acquire", 3 },
+		{ "bpf_kfunc_call_test_release", 8 },
+	},
+	.result_unpriv = REJECT,
+	.result = REJECT,
+	.errstr = "negative offset ptr_ ptr R1 off=-4 disallowed",
+},
+{
+	"calls: invalid kfunc call: PTR_TO_BTF_ID with variable offset",
+	.insns = {
+	BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10),
+	BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -8),
+	BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, 0, 0),
+	BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL, 0, 0),
+	BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1),
+	BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+	BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0),
+	BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_0, 4),
+	BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JLE, BPF_REG_2, 4, 3),
+	BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL, 0, 0),
+	BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+	BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+	BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JGE, BPF_REG_2, 0, 3),
+	BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL, 0, 0),
+	BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+	BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+	BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2),
+	BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL, 0, 0),
+	BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+	BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+	},
+	.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
+	.fixup_kfunc_btf_id = {
+		{ "bpf_kfunc_call_test_acquire", 3 },
+		{ "bpf_kfunc_call_test_release", 9 },
+		{ "bpf_kfunc_call_test_release", 13 },
+		{ "bpf_kfunc_call_test_release", 17 },
+	},
+	.result_unpriv = REJECT,
+	.result = REJECT,
+	.errstr = "variable ptr_ access var_off=(0x0; 0x7) disallowed",
+},
 {
 	"calls: basic sanity",
 	.insns = {