[bpf-next,v5,5/5] bpf: selftests: verifier: Add nullness elision tests

Commit Message

Daniel Xu Dec. 12, 2024, 11:22 p.m. UTC

Test that nullness elision works for common use cases. For example, we
want to check that both full and subreg stack slots are recognized. As
well as when there's both const and non-const values of R2 leading up to
a lookup. And obviously some bound checks.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Xu <[e-mail]>
---
 .../bpf/progs/verifier_array_access.c         | 214 ++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 214 insertions(+)

Comments

Eduard Zingerman Dec. 14, 2024, 6:17 a.m. UTC | #1

On Thu, 2024-12-12 at 16:22 -0700, Daniel Xu wrote:
> Test that nullness elision works for common use cases. For example, we
> want to check that both full and subreg stack slots are recognized. As
> well as when there's both const and non-const values of R2 leading up to
> a lookup. And obviously some bound checks.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Xu <[e-mail]>
> ---

Daniel,

since there would be a respin of this patch-set,
maybe consider using plain C for some of the tests?

[...]

Daniel Xu Dec. 18, 2024, 1:57 a.m. UTC | #2

On Fri, Dec 13, 2024, at 10:17 PM, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-12-12 at 16:22 -0700, Daniel Xu wrote:
>> Test that nullness elision works for common use cases. For example, we
>> want to check that both full and subreg stack slots are recognized. As
>> well as when there's both const and non-const values of R2 leading up to
>> a lookup. And obviously some bound checks.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Xu <[e-mail]>
>> ---
>
> Daniel,
>
> since there would be a respin of this patch-set,
> maybe consider using plain C for some of the tests?

Yeah, makes sense. Will do for v6.

Thanks,
Daniel

Patch

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_array_access.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_array_access.c
index 4195aa824ba5..8ed8865fc6f6 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_array_access.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_array_access.c
@@ -28,6 +28,20 @@  struct {
 	__uint(map_flags, BPF_F_WRONLY_PROG);
 } map_array_wo SEC(".maps");
 
+struct {
+	__uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_ARRAY);
+	__uint(max_entries, 2);
+	__type(key, int);
+	__type(value, struct test_val);
+} map_array_pcpu SEC(".maps");
+
+struct {
+	__uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_ARRAY);
+	__uint(max_entries, 2);
+	__type(key, int);
+	__type(value, struct test_val);
+} map_array SEC(".maps");
+
 struct {
 	__uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_HASH);
 	__uint(max_entries, 1);
@@ -525,4 +539,204 @@  l0_%=:	exit;						\
 	: __clobber_all);
 }
 
+SEC("socket")
+__description("valid map access into an array using constant without nullness")
+__success __retval(4)
+__naked void an_array_with_a_constant_no_nullness(void)
+{
+	asm volatile ("					\
+	r1 = 1;						\
+	*(u64*)(r10 - 8) = r1;				\
+	r2 = r10;					\
+	r2 += -8;					\
+	r1 = %[map_array] ll;				\
+	call %[bpf_map_lookup_elem];			\
+	r1 = %[test_val_foo];				\
+	*(u64*)(r0 + 0) = r1;				\
+	r0 = *(u64*)(r0 + 0);				\
+	exit;						\
+"	:
+	: __imm(bpf_map_lookup_elem),
+	  __imm_addr(map_array),
+	  __imm_const(test_val_foo, offsetof(struct test_val, foo))
+	: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+SEC("socket")
+__description("valid multiple map access into an array using constant without nullness")
+__success __retval(8)
+__naked void multiple_array_with_a_constant_no_nullness(void)
+{
+	asm volatile ("					\
+	r1 = 1;						\
+	*(u64*)(r10 - 8) = r1;				\
+	r2 = r10;					\
+	r2 += -8;					\
+	r1 = %[map_array] ll;				\
+	call %[bpf_map_lookup_elem];			\
+	r6 = %[test_val_foo];				\
+	*(u64*)(r0 + 0) = r6;				\
+	r7 = *(u64*)(r0 + 0);				\
+	r1 = 0;						\
+	*(u64*)(r10 - 16) = r1;				\
+	r2 = r10;					\
+	r2 += -16;					\
+	r1 = %[map_array] ll;				\
+	call %[bpf_map_lookup_elem];			\
+	*(u64*)(r0 + 0) = r6;				\
+	r1 = *(u64*)(r0 + 0);				\
+	r7 += r1;					\
+	r0 = r7;					\
+	exit;						\
+"	:
+	: __imm(bpf_map_lookup_elem),
+	  __imm_addr(map_array),
+	  __imm_const(test_val_foo, offsetof(struct test_val, foo))
+	: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+SEC("socket")
+__description("valid map access into an array using 32-bit constant without nullness")
+__success __retval(4)
+__naked void an_array_with_a_32bit_constant_no_nullness(void)
+{
+	/* 32-bit write must be to stack address aligned to BPF_REG_SIZE
+	 * so that the spill is tracked. Unaligned subreg writes are less
+	 * precisely tracked.
+	 */
+	asm volatile ("					\
+	r1 = 1;						\
+	*(u32*)(r10 - 8) = r1;				\
+	r2 = r10;					\
+	r2 += -8;					\
+	r1 = %[map_array] ll;				\
+	call %[bpf_map_lookup_elem];			\
+	r1 = %[test_val_foo];				\
+	*(u64*)(r0 + 0) = r1;				\
+	r0 = *(u64*)(r0 + 0);				\
+	exit;						\
+"	:
+	: __imm(bpf_map_lookup_elem),
+	  __imm_addr(map_array),
+	  __imm_const(test_val_foo, offsetof(struct test_val, foo))
+	: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+SEC("socket")
+__description("valid map access into an array using 32-bit constant 0 without nullness")
+__success __retval(4)
+__naked void an_array_with_a_32bit_constant_0_no_nullness(void)
+{
+	/* Unlike the above test, 32-bit zeroing is precisely tracked even
+	 * if writes are not aligned to BPF_REG_SIZE. This tests that our
+	 * STACK_ZERO handling functions.
+	 */
+	asm volatile ("					\
+	r1 = 0;						\
+	*(u32*)(r10 - 4) = r1;				\
+	r2 = r10;					\
+	r2 += -4;					\
+	r1 = %[map_array] ll;				\
+	call %[bpf_map_lookup_elem];			\
+	r1 = %[test_val_foo];				\
+	*(u64*)(r0 + 0) = r1;				\
+	r0 = *(u64*)(r0 + 0);				\
+	exit;						\
+"	:
+	: __imm(bpf_map_lookup_elem),
+	  __imm_addr(map_array),
+	  __imm_const(test_val_foo, offsetof(struct test_val, foo))
+	: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+SEC("socket")
+__description("valid map access into a pcpu array using constant without nullness")
+__success __retval(4)
+__naked void a_pcpu_array_with_a_constant_no_nullness(void)
+{
+	asm volatile ("					\
+	r1 = 1;						\
+	*(u64*)(r10 - 8) = r1;				\
+	r2 = r10;					\
+	r2 += -8;					\
+	r1 = %[map_array_pcpu] ll;			\
+	call %[bpf_map_lookup_elem];			\
+	r1 = %[test_val_foo];				\
+	*(u64*)(r0 + 0) = r1;				\
+	r0 = *(u64*)(r0 + 0);				\
+	exit;						\
+"	:
+	: __imm(bpf_map_lookup_elem),
+	  __imm_addr(map_array_pcpu),
+	  __imm_const(test_val_foo, offsetof(struct test_val, foo))
+	: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+SEC("socket")
+__description("invalid map access into an array using constant without nullness")
+__failure __msg("R0 invalid mem access 'map_value_or_null'")
+__naked void an_array_with_a_constant_no_nullness_out_of_bounds(void)
+{
+	asm volatile ("					\
+	r1 = 3;						\
+	*(u64*)(r10 - 8) = r1;				\
+	r2 = r10;					\
+	r2 += -8;					\
+	r1 = %[map_array] ll;				\
+	call %[bpf_map_lookup_elem];			\
+	r1 = %[test_val_foo];				\
+	*(u64*)(r0 + 0) = r1;				\
+	r0 = *(u64*)(r0 + 0);				\
+	exit;						\
+"	:
+	: __imm(bpf_map_lookup_elem),
+	  __imm_addr(map_array),
+	  __imm_const(test_val_foo, offsetof(struct test_val, foo))
+	: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+SEC("socket")
+__description("invalid elided lookup using const and non-const key")
+__failure __msg("R0 invalid mem access 'map_value_or_null'")
+__naked void mixed_const_and_non_const_key_lookup(void)
+{
+	asm volatile ("					\
+	call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];			\
+	if r0 > 42 goto l1_%=;				\
+	*(u64*)(r10 - 8) = r0;				\
+	r2 = r10;					\
+	r2 += -8;					\
+	goto l0_%=;					\
+l1_%=:	r1 = 1;						\
+	*(u64*)(r10 - 8) = r1;				\
+	r2 = r10;					\
+	r2 += -8;					\
+l0_%=:	r1 = %[map_array] ll;				\
+	call %[bpf_map_lookup_elem];			\
+	r0 = *(u64*)(r0 + 0);				\
+	exit;						\
+"	:
+	: __imm(bpf_get_prandom_u32),
+	  __imm(bpf_map_lookup_elem),
+	  __imm_addr(map_array)
+	: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+SEC("socket")
+__failure __msg("invalid read from stack R2 off=4096 size=4")
+__naked void key_lookup_at_invalid_fp(void)
+{
+	asm volatile ("					\
+	r1 = %[map_array] ll;				\
+	r2 = r10;					\
+	r2 += 4096;					\
+	call %[bpf_map_lookup_elem];			\
+	r0 = *(u64*)(r0 + 0);				\
+	exit;						\
+"	:
+	: __imm(bpf_map_lookup_elem),
+	  __imm_addr(map_array)
+	: __clobber_all);
+}
+
 char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";