wireguard-linux/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier, branch jd/unified-crypt-queue

Merge git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf

2020-04-10T00:39:22Z

Daniel Borkmann says: ==================== pull-request: bpf 2020-04-10 The following pull-request contains BPF updates for your *net* tree. We've added 13 non-merge commits during the last 7 day(s) which contain a total of 13 files changed, 137 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-). The main changes are: 1) JIT code emission fixes for riscv and arm32, from Luke Nelson and Xi Wang. 2) Disable vmlinux BTF info if GCC_PLUGIN_RANDSTRUCT is used, from Slava Bacherikov. 3) Fix oob write in AF_XDP when meta data is used, from Li RongQing. 4) Fix bpf_get_link_xdp_id() handling on single prog when flags are specified, from Andrey Ignatov. 5) Fix sk_assign() BPF helper for request sockets that can have sk_reuseport field uninitialized, from Joe Stringer. 6) Fix mprotect() test case for the BPF LSM, from KP Singh. ==================== Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

Merge tag 'spdx-5.7-rc1' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/spdx

2020-04-03T20:12:26Z

Pull SPDX updates from Greg KH: "Here are three SPDX patches for 5.7-rc1. One fixes up the SPDX tag for a single driver, while the other two go through the tree and add SPDX tags for all of the .gitignore files as needed. Nothing too complex, but you will get a merge conflict with your current tree, that should be trivial to handle (one file modified by two things, one file deleted.) All three of these have been in linux-next for a while, with no reported issues other than the merge conflict" * tag 'spdx-5.7-rc1' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/spdx: ASoC: MT6660: make spdxcheck.py happy .gitignore: add SPDX License Identifier .gitignore: remove too obvious comments

bpf: Fix spelling mistake "arithmatic" -> "arithmetic" in test_verifier

2020-04-02T22:29:54Z

There are a couple of spelling mistakes in two literal strings, fix them. Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200331100030.41372-1-colin.king@canonical.com

Merge git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next

2020-03-31T02:52:37Z

Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

bpf: Test_verifier, add alu32 bounds tracking tests

2020-03-30T22:00:31Z

Its possible to have divergent ALU32 and ALU64 bounds when using JMP32 instructins and ALU64 arithmatic operations. Sometimes the clang will even generate this code. Because the case is a bit tricky lets add a specific test for it. Here is pseudocode asm version to illustrate the idea, 1 r0 = 0xffffffff00000001; 2 if w0 > 1 goto %l[fail]; 3 r0 += 1 5 if w0 > 2 goto %l[fail] 6 exit The intent here is the verifier will fail the load if the 32bit bounds are not tracked correctly through ALU64 op. Similarly we can check the 64bit bounds are correctly zero extended after ALU32 ops. 1 r0 = 0xffffffff00000001; 2 w0 += 1 2 if r0 > 3 goto %l[fail]; 6 exit The above will fail if we do not correctly zero extend 64bit bounds after 32bit op. Signed-off-by: John Fastabend Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/158560430155.10843.514209255758200922.stgit@john-Precision-5820-Tower

bpf: Test_verifier, #65 error message updates for trunc of boundary-cross

2020-03-30T22:00:30Z

After changes to add update_reg_bounds after ALU ops and 32-bit bounds tracking truncation of boundary crossing range will fail earlier and with a different error message. Now the test error trace is the following 11: (17) r1 -= 2147483584 12: R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0) R1_w=invP(id=0,smin_value=-2147483584,smax_value=63) R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm 12: (17) r1 -= 2147483584 13: R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0) R1_w=invP(id=0, umin_value=18446744069414584448,umax_value=18446744071562068095, var_off=(0xffffffff00000000; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm 13: (77) r1 >>= 8 14: R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0) R1_w=invP(id=0, umin_value=72057594021150720,umax_value=72057594029539328, var_off=(0xffffffff000000; 0xffffff), s32_min_value=-16777216,s32_max_value=-1, u32_min_value=-16777216) R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm 14: (0f) r0 += r1 value 72057594021150720 makes map_value pointer be out of bounds Because we have 'umin_value == umax_value' instead of previously where 'umin_value != umax_value' we can now fail earlier noting that pointer addition is out of bounds. Signed-off-by: John Fastabend Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/158560428103.10843.6316594510312781186.stgit@john-Precision-5820-Tower

bpf: Test_verifier, bpf_get_stack return value add <0

2020-03-30T22:00:30Z

With current ALU32 subreg handling and retval refine fix from last patches we see an expected failure in test_verifier. With verbose verifier state being printed at each step for clarity we have the following relavent lines [I omit register states that are not necessarily useful to see failure cause], #101/p bpf_get_stack return R0 within range FAIL Failed to load prog 'Success'! [..] 14: (85) call bpf_get_stack#67 R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=48,imm=0) R3_w=inv48 15: R0=inv(id=0,smax_value=48,var32_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) 15: (b7) r1 = 0 16: R0=inv(id=0,smax_value=48,var32_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R1_w=inv0 16: (bf) r8 = r0 17: R0=inv(id=0,smax_value=48,var32_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R1_w=inv0 R8_w=inv(id=0,smax_value=48,var32_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) 17: (67) r8 <<= 32 18: R0=inv(id=0,smax_value=48,var32_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R1_w=inv0 R8_w=inv(id=0,smax_value=9223372032559808512, umax_value=18446744069414584320, var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff00000000), s32_min_value=0, s32_max_value=0, u32_max_value=0, var32_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 18: (c7) r8 s>>= 32 19 R0=inv(id=0,smax_value=48,var32_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R1_w=inv0 R8_w=inv(id=0,smin_value=-2147483648, smax_value=2147483647, var32_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) 19: (cd) if r1 s< r8 goto pc+16 R0=inv(id=0,smax_value=48,var32_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R1_w=inv0 R8_w=inv(id=0,smin_value=-2147483648, smax_value=0, var32_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) 20: R0=inv(id=0,smax_value=48,var32_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R1_w=inv0 R8_w=inv(id=0,smin_value=-2147483648, smax_value=0, R9=inv48 20: (1f) r9 -= r8 21: (bf) r2 = r7 22: R2_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=48,imm=0) 22: (0f) r2 += r8 value -2147483648 makes map_value pointer be out of bounds After call bpf_get_stack() on line 14 and some moves we have at line 16 an r8 bound with max_value 48 but an unknown min value. This is to be expected bpf_get_stack call can only return a max of the input size but is free to return any negative error in the 32-bit register space. The C helper is returning an int so will use lower 32-bits. Lines 17 and 18 clear the top 32 bits with a left/right shift but use ARSH so we still have worst case min bound before line 19 of -2147483648. At this point the signed check 'r1 s< r8' meant to protect the addition on line 22 where dst reg is a map_value pointer may very well return true with a large negative number. Then the final line 22 will detect this as an invalid operation and fail the program. What we want to do is proceed only if r8 is positive non-error. So change 'r1 s< r8' to 'r1 s> r8' so that we jump if r8 is negative. Next we will throw an error because we access past the end of the map value. The map value size is 48 and sizeof(struct test_val) is 48 so we walk off the end of the map value on the second call to get bpf_get_stack(). Fix this by changing sizeof(struct test_val) to 24 by using 'sizeof(struct test_val) / 2'. After this everything passes as expected. Signed-off-by: John Fastabend Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/158560426019.10843.3285429543232025187.stgit@john-Precision-5820-Tower

bpf: Add selftest cases for ctx_or_null argument type

2020-03-28T02:40:39Z

Add various tests to make sure the verifier keeps catching them: # ./test_verifier [...] #230/p pass ctx or null check, 1: ctx OK #231/p pass ctx or null check, 2: null OK #232/p pass ctx or null check, 3: 1 OK #233/p pass ctx or null check, 4: ctx - const OK #234/p pass ctx or null check, 5: null (connect) OK #235/p pass ctx or null check, 6: null (bind) OK #236/p pass ctx or null check, 7: ctx (bind) OK #237/p pass ctx or null check, 8: null (bind) OK [...] Summary: 1595 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/c74758d07b1b678036465ef7f068a49e9efd3548.1585323121.git.daniel@iogearbox.net

bpf: Test_verifier, #70 error message updates for 32-bit right shift

2020-03-26T06:05:54Z

After changes to add update_reg_bounds after ALU ops and adding ALU32 bounds tracking the error message is changed in the 32-bit right shift tests. Test "#70/u bounds check after 32-bit right shift with 64-bit input FAIL" now fails with, Unexpected error message! EXP: R0 invalid mem access RES: func#0 @0 7: (b7) r1 = 2 8: R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0) R1_w=invP2 R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm 8: (67) r1 <<= 31 9: R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0) R1_w=invP4294967296 R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm 9: (74) w1 >>= 31 10: R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0) R1_w=invP0 R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm 10: (14) w1 -= 2 11: R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0) R1_w=invP4294967294 R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm 11: (0f) r0 += r1 math between map_value pointer and 4294967294 is not allowed And test "#70/p bounds check after 32-bit right shift with 64-bit input FAIL" now fails with, Unexpected error message! EXP: R0 invalid mem access RES: func#0 @0 7: (b7) r1 = 2 8: R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0) R1_w=inv2 R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm 8: (67) r1 <<= 31 9: R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0) R1_w=inv4294967296 R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm 9: (74) w1 >>= 31 10: R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0) R1_w=inv0 R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm 10: (14) w1 -= 2 11: R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0) R1_w=inv4294967294 R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm 11: (0f) r0 += r1 last_idx 11 first_idx 0 regs=2 stack=0 before 10: (14) w1 -= 2 regs=2 stack=0 before 9: (74) w1 >>= 31 regs=2 stack=0 before 8: (67) r1 <<= 31 regs=2 stack=0 before 7: (b7) r1 = 2 math between map_value pointer and 4294967294 is not allowed Before this series we did not trip the "math between map_value pointer..." error because check_reg_sane_offset is never called in adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(). Instead we have a register state that looks like this at line 11*, 11: R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8, smin_value=0,smax_value=0, umin_value=0,umax_value=0, var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R1_w=invP(id=0, smin_value=0,smax_value=4294967295, umin_value=0,umax_value=4294967295, var_off=(0xfffffffe; 0x0)) R10=fp(id=0,off=0, smin_value=0,smax_value=0, umin_value=0,umax_value=0, var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm 11: (0f) r0 += r1 In R1 'smin_val != smax_val' yet we have a tnum_const as seen by 'var_off(0xfffffffe; 0x0))' with a 0x0 mask. So we hit this check in adjust_ptr_min_max_vals() if ((known && (smin_val != smax_val || umin_val != umax_val)) || smin_val > smax_val || umin_val > umax_val) { /* Taint dst register if offset had invalid bounds derived from * e.g. dead branches. */ __mark_reg_unknown(env, dst_reg); return 0; } So we don't throw an error here and instead only throw an error later in the verification when the memory access is made. The root cause in verifier without alu32 bounds tracking is having 'umin_value = 0' and 'umax_value = U64_MAX' from BPF_SUB which we set when 'umin_value < umax_val' here, if (dst_reg->umin_value < umax_val) { /* Overflow possible, we know nothing */ dst_reg->umin_value = 0; dst_reg->umax_value = U64_MAX; } else { ...} Later in adjust_calar_min_max_vals we previously did a coerce_reg_to_size() which will clamp the U64_MAX to U32_MAX by truncating to 32bits. But either way without a call to update_reg_bounds the less precise bounds tracking will fall out of the alu op verification. After latest changes we now exit adjust_scalar_min_max_vals with the more precise umin value, due to zero extension propogating bounds from alu32 bounds into alu64 bounds and then calling update_reg_bounds. This then causes the verifier to trigger an earlier error and we get the error in the output above. This patch updates tests to reflect new error message. * I have a local patch to print entire verifier state regardless if we believe it is a constant so we can get a full picture of the state. Usually if tnum_is_const() then bounds are also smin=smax, etc. but this is not always true and is a bit subtle. Being able to see these states helps understand dataflow imo. Let me know if we want something similar upstream. Signed-off-by: John Fastabend Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/158507161475.15666.3061518385241144063.stgit@john-Precision-5820-Tower

Merge git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net

2020-03-26T01:58:11Z

Overlapping header include additions in macsec.c A bug fix in 'net' overlapping with the removal of 'version' string in ena_netdev.c Overlapping test additions in selftests Makefile Overlapping PCI ID table adjustments in iwlwifi driver. Signed-off-by: David S. Miller