Add an __xlated test to the open-coded iterator suite that pins the shape of the inlined bpf_iter_num_{new,next,destroy}() rewrites. The program is a naked function, so there is no compiler-generated glue and the whole inlined program is matched instruction for instruction: bpf_iter_num_new() emits the range check (distance computation and both the -EINVAL and -E2BIG paths), and bpf_iter_num_next()/destroy() are inlined too. The tests are pinned to x86_64 and arm64 (bpf_jit_needs_zext() == false): on arches that need explicit zero-extension the verifier interleaves "wN = wN" insns into the inlined body, which would not match the fixed instruction sequence. The inlining itself is arch independent, so checking it on these arches is sufficient. Suggested-by: Eduard Zingerman Signed-off-by: Puranjay Mohan --- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/iters.c | 83 +++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 83 insertions(+) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/iters.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/iters.c index 0fa70b133d932..62d7df9e80beb 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/iters.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/iters.c @@ -88,6 +88,89 @@ int iter_err_unsafe_asm_loop(const void *ctx) return 0; } +/* + * Naked function, so there is no compiler-generated glue and the whole inlined program can be + * matched. Pinned to arches whose JITs zero-extend 32-bit writes implicitly + * (bpf_jit_needs_zext() == false); on arches that need explicit zero-extension the verifier + * interleaves "wN = wN" insns and the fixed shape below would not match. The inlining itself is + * arch independent, so checking it on these arches is sufficient. + * + * bpf_iter_num_new() emits the full range check (distance computation and both the -EINVAL and + * -E2BIG error paths); bpf_iter_num_next() and bpf_iter_num_destroy() are inlined too. + */ +SEC("raw_tp") +__arch_x86_64 +__arch_arm64 +__success +__xlated("r6 = r10") +__xlated("r6 += -8") +__xlated("call unknown") +__xlated("r3 = r0") +__xlated("r3 &= 65535") +__xlated("r1 = r6") +__xlated("r2 = 0") +/* bpf_iter_num_new(&it, 0, ) with the range check kept */ +__xlated("if w2 s> w3 goto pc+8") +__xlated("w0 = w3") +__xlated("w0 -= w2") +__xlated("if r0 > 0x800000 goto pc+8") +__xlated("w2 += -1") +__xlated("*(u32 *)(r1 +0) = r2") +__xlated("*(u32 *)(r1 +4) = r3") +__xlated("r0 = 0") +__xlated("goto pc+5") +__xlated("*(u64 *)(r1 +0) = 0") +__xlated("r0 = -22") +__xlated("goto pc+2") +__xlated("*(u64 *)(r1 +0) = 0") +__xlated("r0 = -7") +__xlated("r1 = r6") +/* bpf_iter_num_next(&it) */ +__xlated("r0 = *(u32 *)(r1 +0)") +__xlated("w0 += 1") +__xlated("r2 = *(u32 *)(r1 +4)") +__xlated("if w0 s>= w2 goto pc+3") +__xlated("*(u32 *)(r1 +0) = r0") +__xlated("r0 = r1") +__xlated("goto pc+2") +__xlated("*(u64 *)(r1 +0) = 0") +__xlated("r0 = 0") +__xlated("if r0 != 0x0 goto pc-11") +__xlated("r1 = r6") +/* bpf_iter_num_destroy(&it) is inlined to a nop */ +__xlated("goto pc+0") +__xlated("r0 = 0") +__xlated("exit") +int __naked iter_num_new_inlined(void) +{ + asm volatile ( + /* r6 points to struct bpf_iter_num on the stack */ + "r6 = r10;" + "r6 += -8;" + /* non-constant end so the range checks are kept */ + "call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];" + "r3 = r0;" + "r3 &= 0xffff;" + "r1 = r6;" + "r2 = 0;" + "call %[bpf_iter_num_new];" + "1:" + "r1 = r6;" + "call %[bpf_iter_num_next];" + "if r0 != 0 goto 1b;" + "r1 = r6;" + "call %[bpf_iter_num_destroy];" + "r0 = 0;" + "exit;" + : + : __imm(bpf_get_prandom_u32), + __imm(bpf_iter_num_new), + __imm(bpf_iter_num_next), + __imm(bpf_iter_num_destroy) + : __clobber_common, "r6" + ); +} + SEC("raw_tp") __success int iter_while_loop(const void *ctx) -- 2.53.0-Meta