From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@fb•com>
To: "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft•net>
Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox•net>, <netdev@vger•kernel.org>,
<kernel-team@fb•com>
Subject: [PATCH net-next 6/9] bpf: fix stack_depth usage by test_bpf.ko
Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:31:32 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170530203135.3642768-7-ast@fb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170530203135.3642768-1-ast@fb.com>
test_bpf.ko doesn't call verifier before selecting interpreter or JITing,
hence the tests need to manually specify the amount of stack they consume.
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel•org>
Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox•net>
---
lib/test_bpf.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/lib/test_bpf.c b/lib/test_bpf.c
index be88cbaadde3..070bde56474c 100644
--- a/lib/test_bpf.c
+++ b/lib/test_bpf.c
@@ -84,6 +84,7 @@ struct bpf_test {
} test[MAX_SUBTESTS];
int (*fill_helper)(struct bpf_test *self);
__u8 frag_data[MAX_DATA];
+ int stack_depth; /* for eBPF only, since tests don't call verifier */
};
/* Large test cases need separate allocation and fill handler. */
@@ -455,6 +456,7 @@ static int __bpf_fill_stxdw(struct bpf_test *self, int size)
self->u.ptr.insns = insn;
self->u.ptr.len = len;
+ self->stack_depth = 40;
return 0;
}
@@ -2317,7 +2319,8 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
{ 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0x08, 0x06, 0, 0,
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,
0x10, 0xbf, 0x48, 0xd6, 0x43, 0xd6},
- { { 38, 256 } }
+ { { 38, 256 } },
+ .stack_depth = 64,
},
/* BPF_ALU | BPF_MOV | BPF_X */
{
@@ -4169,6 +4172,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
INTERNAL,
{ },
{ { 0, 0xff } },
+ .stack_depth = 40,
},
{
"ST_MEM_B: Store/Load byte: max positive",
@@ -4181,6 +4185,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
INTERNAL,
{ },
{ { 0, 0x7f } },
+ .stack_depth = 40,
},
{
"STX_MEM_B: Store/Load byte: max negative",
@@ -4194,6 +4199,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
INTERNAL,
{ },
{ { 0, 0xff } },
+ .stack_depth = 40,
},
{
"ST_MEM_H: Store/Load half word: max negative",
@@ -4206,6 +4212,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
INTERNAL,
{ },
{ { 0, 0xffff } },
+ .stack_depth = 40,
},
{
"ST_MEM_H: Store/Load half word: max positive",
@@ -4218,6 +4225,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
INTERNAL,
{ },
{ { 0, 0x7fff } },
+ .stack_depth = 40,
},
{
"STX_MEM_H: Store/Load half word: max negative",
@@ -4231,6 +4239,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
INTERNAL,
{ },
{ { 0, 0xffff } },
+ .stack_depth = 40,
},
{
"ST_MEM_W: Store/Load word: max negative",
@@ -4243,6 +4252,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
INTERNAL,
{ },
{ { 0, 0xffffffff } },
+ .stack_depth = 40,
},
{
"ST_MEM_W: Store/Load word: max positive",
@@ -4255,6 +4265,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
INTERNAL,
{ },
{ { 0, 0x7fffffff } },
+ .stack_depth = 40,
},
{
"STX_MEM_W: Store/Load word: max negative",
@@ -4268,6 +4279,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
INTERNAL,
{ },
{ { 0, 0xffffffff } },
+ .stack_depth = 40,
},
{
"ST_MEM_DW: Store/Load double word: max negative",
@@ -4280,6 +4292,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
INTERNAL,
{ },
{ { 0, 0xffffffff } },
+ .stack_depth = 40,
},
{
"ST_MEM_DW: Store/Load double word: max negative 2",
@@ -4297,6 +4310,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
INTERNAL,
{ },
{ { 0, 0x1 } },
+ .stack_depth = 40,
},
{
"ST_MEM_DW: Store/Load double word: max positive",
@@ -4309,6 +4323,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
INTERNAL,
{ },
{ { 0, 0x7fffffff } },
+ .stack_depth = 40,
},
{
"STX_MEM_DW: Store/Load double word: max negative",
@@ -4322,6 +4337,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
INTERNAL,
{ },
{ { 0, 0xffffffff } },
+ .stack_depth = 40,
},
/* BPF_STX | BPF_XADD | BPF_W/DW */
{
@@ -4336,6 +4352,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
INTERNAL,
{ },
{ { 0, 0x22 } },
+ .stack_depth = 40,
},
{
"STX_XADD_W: Test side-effects, r10: 0x12 + 0x10 = 0x22",
@@ -4351,6 +4368,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
INTERNAL,
{ },
{ { 0, 0 } },
+ .stack_depth = 40,
},
{
"STX_XADD_W: Test side-effects, r0: 0x12 + 0x10 = 0x22",
@@ -4363,6 +4381,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
INTERNAL,
{ },
{ { 0, 0x12 } },
+ .stack_depth = 40,
},
{
"STX_XADD_W: X + 1 + 1 + 1 + ...",
@@ -4384,6 +4403,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
INTERNAL,
{ },
{ { 0, 0x22 } },
+ .stack_depth = 40,
},
{
"STX_XADD_DW: Test side-effects, r10: 0x12 + 0x10 = 0x22",
@@ -4399,6 +4419,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
INTERNAL,
{ },
{ { 0, 0 } },
+ .stack_depth = 40,
},
{
"STX_XADD_DW: Test side-effects, r0: 0x12 + 0x10 = 0x22",
@@ -4411,6 +4432,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
INTERNAL,
{ },
{ { 0, 0x12 } },
+ .stack_depth = 40,
},
{
"STX_XADD_DW: X + 1 + 1 + 1 + ...",
@@ -5809,6 +5831,7 @@ static struct bpf_prog *generate_filter(int which, int *err)
/* Type doesn't really matter here as long as it's not unspec. */
fp->type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCKET_FILTER;
memcpy(fp->insnsi, fptr, fp->len * sizeof(struct bpf_insn));
+ fp->aux->stack_depth = tests[which].stack_depth;
/* We cannot error here as we don't need type compatibility
* checks.
--
2.9.3
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-05-30 20:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-05-30 20:31 [PATCH net-next 0/9] bpf: stack depth tracking Alexei Starovoitov
2017-05-30 20:31 ` [PATCH net-next 1/9] bpf: free up BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL | BPF_X opcode Alexei Starovoitov
2017-05-30 20:31 ` [PATCH net-next 2/9] bpf: split bpf core interpreter Alexei Starovoitov
2017-05-30 20:31 ` [PATCH net-next 3/9] bpf: teach verifier to track stack depth Alexei Starovoitov
2017-05-30 20:31 ` [PATCH net-next 4/9] bpf: reconcile bpf_tail_call and stack_depth Alexei Starovoitov
2017-05-30 20:31 ` [PATCH net-next 5/9] bpf: track stack depth of classic bpf programs Alexei Starovoitov
2017-05-30 20:31 ` Alexei Starovoitov [this message]
2017-05-31 18:15 ` [PATCH net-next 6/9] bpf: fix stack_depth usage by test_bpf.ko David Miller
2017-05-31 18:39 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2017-05-31 18:43 ` David Miller
2017-05-31 18:45 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2017-05-31 22:41 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2017-05-31 23:30 ` David Miller
2017-06-06 10:19 ` Daniel Borkmann
2017-05-30 20:31 ` [PATCH net-next 7/9] bpf: use different interpreter depending on required stack size Alexei Starovoitov
2017-05-30 20:31 ` [PATCH net-next 8/9] bpf: change x86 JITed program stack layout Alexei Starovoitov
2017-05-30 20:31 ` [PATCH net-next 9/9] bpf: take advantage of stack_depth tracking in x64 JIT Alexei Starovoitov
2017-05-31 23:30 ` [PATCH net-next 0/9] bpf: stack depth tracking David Miller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170530203135.3642768-7-ast@fb.com \
--to=ast@fb$(echo .)com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox$(echo .)net \
--cc=davem@davemloft$(echo .)net \
--cc=kernel-team@fb$(echo .)com \
--cc=netdev@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox