lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jul]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: bpf: test_verifier: sanitation: alu with different scalars
Hi, Daniel,

On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 12:39 PM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> wrote:
>
> On 06/25/2019 10:29 AM, Yauheni Kaliuta wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > I'm wondering, how the sanitaion tests (#903 5.2-rc6 for example)
> > are supposed to work on BE arches:
> >
> > {
> > "sanitation: alu with different scalars 1",
> > .insns = {
> > BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
> > BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_ARG1, 0),
> > BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_ARG2, BPF_REG_FP),
> > BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_ARG2, -16),
> > BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_FP, -16, 0),
> > BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem),
> > BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1),
> > BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> > BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0, 0),
> >
> > reads one byte 0 on BE and 28 on LE (from ->index) since
> >
> > struct test_val {
> > unsigned int index;
> > int foo[MAX_ENTRIES];
> > };
> >
> > struct test_val value = {
> > .index = (6 + 1) * sizeof(int),
> > .foo[6] = 0xabcdef12,
> > };
> >
> > BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_1, 0, 3),
> >
> > So different branches are taken depending of the endianness.
> >
> > BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 0),
> > BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_3, 0x100000),
> > BPF_JMP_A(2),
> > BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 42),
> > BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_3, 0x100001),
> > BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_3),
> > BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2),
> > BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> > },
> > .fixup_map_array_48b = { 1 },
> > .result = ACCEPT,
> > .retval = 0x100000,
> > },
>
> Let me get my hands on a s390x box later today and get back to you.

Any progress with that?

--
WBR, Yauheni

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-07-26 12:42    [W:0.030 / U:2.760 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site