Merge branch 'bpf-subreg-tests'

Jiong Wang says: ==================== JIT back-ends need to guarantee high 32-bit cleared whenever one eBPF insn write low 32-bit sub-register only. It is possible that some JIT back-ends have failed doing this and are silently generating wrong image. This set completes the unit tests, so bug on this could be exposed in JITs. ==================== Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <[email protected]>
modi0012 · May 29, 2019 · 10b3c44 · 10b3c44
2 parents bd95e67 + c25d60c
commit 10b3c44
Show file tree

Hide file tree

Showing 2 changed files with 533 additions and 39 deletions.
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/basic_instr.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/basic_instr.c
@@ -132,42 +132,3 @@
 	.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
 	.result = ACCEPT,
 },
-{
-	"and32 reg zero extend check",
-	.insns = {
-	BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, -1),
-	BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, -2),
-	BPF_ALU32_REG(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2),
-	BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_RSH, BPF_REG_0, 32),
-	BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
-	},
-	.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
-	.result = ACCEPT,
-	.retval = 0,
-},
-{
-	"or32 reg zero extend check",
-	.insns = {
-	BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, -1),
-	BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, -2),
-	BPF_ALU32_REG(BPF_OR, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2),
-	BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_RSH, BPF_REG_0, 32),
-	BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
-	},
-	.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
-	.result = ACCEPT,
-	.retval = 0,
-},
-{
-	"xor32 reg zero extend check",
-	.insns = {
-	BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, -1),
-	BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 0),
-	BPF_ALU32_REG(BPF_XOR, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2),
-	BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_RSH, BPF_REG_0, 32),
-	BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
-	},
-	.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
-	.result = ACCEPT,
-	.retval = 0,
-},