Fix tests that assumed no loops.
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <a...@kernel.org>
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 11 ++++------
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/calls.c | 22 ++++++++++++--------
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/cfg.c | 11 ++++++----
3 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
index cd0248c54e25..93e1d87a343a 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
@@ -237,10 +237,10 @@ static void bpf_fill_scale1(struct bpf_test *self)
insn[i++] = BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_6,
-8 * (k % 64 + 1));
}
- /* every jump adds 1 step to insn_processed, so to stay exactly
- * within 1m limit add MAX_TEST_INSNS - MAX_JMP_SEQ - 1 MOVs and 1 EXIT
+ /* is_state_visited() doesn't allocate state for pruning for every jump.
+ * Hence multiply jmps by 4 to accommodate that heuristic
*/
- while (i < MAX_TEST_INSNS - MAX_JMP_SEQ - 1)
+ while (i < MAX_TEST_INSNS - MAX_JMP_SEQ * 4)
insn[i++] = BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_MOV, BPF_REG_0, 42);
insn[i] = BPF_EXIT_INSN();
self->prog_len = i + 1;
@@ -269,10 +269,7 @@ static void bpf_fill_scale2(struct bpf_test *self)
insn[i++] = BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_6,
-8 * (k % (64 - 4 * FUNC_NEST) + 1));
}
- /* every jump adds 1 step to insn_processed, so to stay exactly
- * within 1m limit add MAX_TEST_INSNS - MAX_JMP_SEQ - 1 MOVs and 1 EXIT
- */
- while (i < MAX_TEST_INSNS - MAX_JMP_SEQ - 1)
+ while (i < MAX_TEST_INSNS - MAX_JMP_SEQ * 4)
insn[i++] = BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_MOV, BPF_REG_0, 42);
insn[i] = BPF_EXIT_INSN();
self->prog_len = i + 1;
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/calls.c
b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/calls.c
index 9093a8f64dc6..2d752c4f8d9d 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/calls.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/calls.c
@@ -215,9 +215,11 @@
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 3),
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JA, 0, 0, -6),
},
- .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACEPOINT,
- .errstr = "back-edge from insn",
- .result = REJECT,
+ .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCKET_FILTER,
+ .errstr_unpriv = "back-edge from insn",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
+ .result = ACCEPT,
+ .retval = 1,
},
{
"calls: conditional call 4",
@@ -250,22 +252,24 @@
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 3),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
- .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACEPOINT,
- .errstr = "back-edge from insn",
- .result = REJECT,
+ .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
+ .result = ACCEPT,
+ .retval = 1,
},
{
"calls: conditional call 6",
.insns = {
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_1),
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_6),
BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 1, 0, 2),
- BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, -2),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, -3),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1,
offsetof(struct __sk_buff, mark)),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
- .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACEPOINT,
- .errstr = "back-edge from insn",
+ .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
+ .errstr = "infinite loop detected",
.result = REJECT,
},
{
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/cfg.c
b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/cfg.c
index 349c0862fb4c..4eb76ed739ce 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/cfg.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/cfg.c
@@ -41,7 +41,8 @@
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JA, 0, 0, -1),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
- .errstr = "back-edge",
+ .errstr = "unreachable insn 1",
+ .errstr_unpriv = "back-edge",
.result = REJECT,
},
{
@@ -53,18 +54,20 @@
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JA, 0, 0, -4),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
- .errstr = "back-edge",
+ .errstr = "unreachable insn 4",
+ .errstr_unpriv = "back-edge",
.result = REJECT,
},
{
"conditional loop",
.insns = {
- BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0),
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_0),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_0),
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_1, 0, -3),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
- .errstr = "back-edge",
+ .errstr = "infinite loop detected",
+ .errstr_unpriv = "back-edge",
.result = REJECT,
},
--
2.20.0
