selftests/bpf: tests with a loop state missing read/precision mark
The test case absent_mark_in_the_middle_state is equivalent of the
following C program:
1: r8 = bpf_get_prandom_u32();
2: r6 = -32;
3: bpf_iter_num_new(&fp[-8], 0, 10);
4: if (unlikely(bpf_get_prandom_u32()))
5: r6 = -31;
6: for (;;) {
7: if (!bpf_iter_num_next(&fp[-8]))
8: break;
9: if (unlikely(bpf_get_prandom_u32()))
10: *(u64 *)(fp + r6) = 7;
11: }
12: bpf_iter_num_destroy(&fp[-8]);
13: return 0;
W/o a fix that instructs verifier to ignore branches count for loop
entries verification proceeds as follows:
- 1-4, state is {r6=-32,fp-8=active};
- 6, checkpoint A is created with {r6=-32,fp-8=active};
- 7, checkpoint B is created with {r6=-32,fp-8=active},
push state {r6=-32,fp-8=active} from 7 to 9;
- 8,12,13, {r6=-32,fp-8=drained}, exit;
- pop state with {r6=-32,fp-8=active} from 7 to 9;
- 9, push state {r6=-32,fp-8=active} from 9 to 10;
- 6, checkpoint C is created with {r6=-32,fp-8=active};
- 7, checkpoint A is hit, no precision propagated for r6 to C;
- pop state {r6=-32,fp-8=active} from 9 to 10;
- 10, state is {r6=-31,fp-8=active}, r6 is marked as read and precise,
these marks are propagated to checkpoints A and B (but not C, as
it is not the parent of current state;
- 6, {r6=-31,fp-8=active} checkpoint C is hit, because r6 is not
marked precise for this checkpoint;
- the program is accepted, despite a possibility of unaligned u64
stack access at offset -31.
The test case absent_mark_in_the_middle_state2 is similar except the
following change:
r8 = bpf_get_prandom_u32();
r6 = -32;
bpf_iter_num_new(&fp[-8], 0, 10);
if (unlikely(bpf_get_prandom_u32())) {
r6 = -31;
+ jump_into_loop:
+ goto +0;
+ goto loop;
+ }
+ if (unlikely(bpf_get_prandom_u32()))
+ goto jump_into_loop;
+ loop:
for (;;) {
if (!bpf_iter_num_next(&fp[-8]))
break;
if (unlikely(bpf_get_prandom_u32()))
*(u64 *)(fp + r6) = 7;
}
bpf_iter_num_destroy(&fp[-8])
return 0
The goal is to check that read/precision marks are propagated to
checkpoint created at 'goto +0' that resides outside of the loop.
The test case absent_mark_in_the_middle_state3 is a bit different and
is equivalent to the C program below:
int absent_mark_in_the_middle_state3(void)
{
bpf_iter_num_new(&fp[-8], 0, 10)
loop1(-32, &fp[-8])
loop1_wrapper(&fp[-8])
bpf_iter_num_destroy(&fp[-8])
}
int loop1(num, iter)
{
while (bpf_iter_num_next(iter)) {
if (unlikely(bpf_get_prandom_u32()))
*(fp + num) = 7;
}
return 0
}
int loop1_wrapper(iter)
{
r6 = -32;
if (unlikely(bpf_get_prandom_u32()))
r6 = -31;
loop1(r6, iter);
return 0;
}
The unsafe state is reached in a similar manner, but the loop is
located inside a subprogram that is called from two locations in the
main subprogram. This detail is important for exercising
bpf_scc_visit->backedges memory management.
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250611200836.4135542-11-eddyz87@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
1 file changed
