linux/lib/test_bpf.c, branch v5.1

bpf: test_bpf: turn off preemption in function __run_once

2019-02-25T21:18:07Z

When running BPF test suite the following splat occurs: [ 415.930950] test_bpf: #0 TAX jited:0 [ 415.931067] BUG: assuming atomic context at lib/test_bpf.c:6674 [ 415.946169] in_atomic(): 0, irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 11556, name: modprobe [ 415.953176] INFO: lockdep is turned off. [ 415.957207] CPU: 1 PID: 11556 Comm: modprobe Tainted: G W 5.0.0-rc7-next-20190220 #1 [ 415.966328] Hardware name: HiKey Development Board (DT) [ 415.971592] Call trace: [ 415.974069] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x160 [ 415.977761] show_stack+0x24/0x30 [ 415.981104] dump_stack+0xc8/0x114 [ 415.984534] __cant_sleep+0xf0/0x108 [ 415.988145] test_bpf_init+0x5e0/0x1000 [test_bpf] [ 415.992971] do_one_initcall+0x90/0x428 [ 415.996837] do_init_module+0x60/0x1e4 [ 416.000614] load_module+0x1de0/0x1f50 [ 416.004391] __se_sys_finit_module+0xc8/0xe0 [ 416.008691] __arm64_sys_finit_module+0x24/0x30 [ 416.013255] el0_svc_common+0x78/0x130 [ 416.017031] el0_svc_handler+0x38/0x78 [ 416.020806] el0_svc+0x8/0xc Rework so that preemption is disabled when we loop over function 'BPF_PROG_RUN(...)'. Fixes: 568f196756ad ("bpf: check that BPF programs run with preemption disabled") Suggested-by: Arnd Bergmann Signed-off-by: Anders Roxell Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann

net: remove VLAN_TAG_PRESENT

2018-11-17T03:25:29Z

Replace VLAN_TAG_PRESENT with single bit flag and free up VLAN.CFI overload. Now VLAN.CFI is visible in networking stack and can be passed around intact. Signed-off-by: Michał Mirosław Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

bpf: test_bpf: add init_net to dev for flow_dissector

2018-09-27T19:09:45Z

Latest changes in __skb_flow_dissect() assume skb->dev has valid nd_net. However, this is not true for test_bpf. As a result, test_bpf.ko crashes the system with the following stack trace: [ 1133.716622] BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at 0000000000001030 [ 1133.716623] PGD 8000001fbf7ee067 [ 1133.716624] P4D 8000001fbf7ee067 [ 1133.716624] PUD 1f6c1cf067 [ 1133.716625] PMD 0 [ 1133.716628] Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP PTI [ 1133.716630] CPU: 7 PID: 40473 Comm: modprobe Kdump: loaded Not tainted 4.19.0-rc5-00805-gca11cc92ccd2 #1167 [ 1133.716631] Hardware name: Wiwynn Leopard-Orv2/Leopard-DDR BW, BIOS LBM12.5 12/06/2017 [ 1133.716638] RIP: 0010:__skb_flow_dissect+0x83/0x1680 [ 1133.716639] Code: 04 00 00 41 0f b7 44 24 04 48 85 db 4d 8d 14 07 0f 84 01 02 00 00 48 8b 43 10 48 85 c0 0f 84 e5 01 00 00 48 8b 80 a8 04 00 00 <48> 8b 90 30 10 00 00 48 85 d2 0f 84 dd 01 00 00 31 c0 b9 05 00 00 [ 1133.716640] RSP: 0018:ffffc900303c7a80 EFLAGS: 00010282 [ 1133.716642] RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffff881fea0b7400 RCX: 0000000000000000 [ 1133.716643] RDX: ffffc900303c7bb4 RSI: ffffffff8235c3e0 RDI: ffff881fea0b7400 [ 1133.716643] RBP: ffffc900303c7b80 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 000000000000000e [ 1133.716644] R10: ffffc900303c7bb4 R11: ffff881fb6840400 R12: ffffffff8235c3e0 [ 1133.716645] R13: 0000000000000008 R14: 000000000000001e R15: ffffc900303c7bb4 [ 1133.716646] FS: 00007f54e75d3740(0000) GS:ffff881fff5c0000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 [ 1133.716648] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 [ 1133.716649] CR2: 0000000000001030 CR3: 0000001f6c226005 CR4: 00000000003606e0 [ 1133.716649] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 [ 1133.716650] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 [ 1133.716651] Call Trace: [ 1133.716660] ? sched_clock_cpu+0xc/0xa0 [ 1133.716662] ? sched_clock_cpu+0xc/0xa0 [ 1133.716665] ? log_store+0x1b5/0x260 [ 1133.716667] ? up+0x12/0x60 [ 1133.716669] ? skb_get_poff+0x4b/0xa0 [ 1133.716674] ? __kmalloc_reserve.isra.47+0x2e/0x80 [ 1133.716675] skb_get_poff+0x4b/0xa0 [ 1133.716680] bpf_skb_get_pay_offset+0xa/0x10 [ 1133.716686] ? test_bpf_init+0x578/0x1000 [test_bpf] [ 1133.716690] ? netlink_broadcast_filtered+0x153/0x3d0 [ 1133.716695] ? free_pcppages_bulk+0x324/0x600 [ 1133.716696] ? 0xffffffffa0279000 [ 1133.716699] ? do_one_initcall+0x46/0x1bd [ 1133.716704] ? kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x144/0x1a0 [ 1133.716709] ? do_init_module+0x5b/0x209 [ 1133.716712] ? load_module+0x2136/0x25d0 [ 1133.716715] ? __do_sys_finit_module+0xba/0xe0 [ 1133.716717] ? __do_sys_finit_module+0xba/0xe0 [ 1133.716719] ? do_syscall_64+0x48/0x100 [ 1133.716724] ? entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 This patch fixes tes_bpf by using init_net in the dummy dev. Fixes: d58e468b1112 ("flow_dissector: implements flow dissector BPF hook") Reported-by: Eric Dumazet Cc: Willem de Bruijn Cc: Petar Penkov Signed-off-by: Song Liu Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet Acked-by: Willem de Bruijn Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann

test_bpf: flag tests that cannot be jited on s390

2018-06-28T21:58:39Z

Flag with FLAG_EXPECTED_FAIL the BPF_MAXINSNS tests that cannot be jited on s390 because they exceed BPF_SIZE_MAX and fail when CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON is set. Also set .expected_errcode to -ENOTSUPP so the tests pass in that case. Signed-off-by: Kleber Sacilotto de Souza Acked-by: Song Liu Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann

bpf: add also cbpf long jump test cases with heavy expansion

2018-06-03T14:42:06Z

We have one triggering on eBPF but lets also add a cBPF example to make sure we keep tracking them. Also add anther cBPF test running max number of MSH ops. Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Acked-by: Song Liu Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov

bpf: migrate ebpf ld_abs/ld_ind tests to test_verifier

2018-05-03T23:49:19Z

Remove all eBPF tests involving LD_ABS/LD_IND from test_bpf.ko. Reason is that the eBPF tests from test_bpf module do not go via BPF verifier and therefore any instruction rewrites from verifier cannot take place. Therefore, move them into test_verifier which runs out of user space, so that verfier can rewrite LD_ABS/LD_IND internally in upcoming patches. It will have the same effect since runtime tests are also performed from there. This also allows to finally unexport bpf_skb_vlan_{push,pop}_proto and keep it internal to core kernel. Additionally, also add further cBPF LD_ABS/LD_IND test coverage into test_bpf.ko suite. Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov

test_bpf: Fix NULL vs IS_ERR() check in test_skb_segment()

2018-03-29T18:33:29Z

The skb_segment() function returns error pointers on error. It never returns NULL. Fixes: 76db8087c4c9 ("net: bpf: add a test for skb_segment in test_bpf module") Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann Reviewed-by: Yonghong Song Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

net: bpf: add a test for skb_segment in test_bpf module

2018-03-25T20:46:05Z

Without the previous commit, "modprobe test_bpf" will have the following errors: ... [ 98.149165] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [ 98.159362] kernel BUG at net/core/skbuff.c:3667! [ 98.169756] invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP PTI [ 98.179370] Modules linked in: [ 98.179371] test_bpf(+) ... which triggers the bug the previous commit intends to fix. The skbs are constructed to mimic what mlx5 may generate. The packet size/header may not mimic real cases in production. But the processing flow is similar. Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

test_bpf: Fix testing with CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON=y on other arches

2018-03-20T22:04:30Z

Function bpf_fill_maxinsns11 is designed to not be able to be JITed on x86_64. So, it fails when CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON=y, and commit 09584b406742 ("bpf: fix selftests/bpf test_kmod.sh failure when CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON=y") makes sure that failure is detected on that case. However, it does not fail on other architectures, which have a different JIT compiler design. So, test_bpf has started to fail to load on those. After this fix, test_bpf loads fine on both x86_64 and ppc64el. Fixes: 09584b406742 ("bpf: fix selftests/bpf test_kmod.sh failure when CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON=y") Signed-off-by: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo Reviewed-by: Yonghong Song Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann

test_bpf: reduce MAX_TESTRUNS

2018-02-28T16:49:18Z

For tests that are using the maximal number of BPF instruction, each run takes 20 usec. Looping 10,000 times on them totals 200 ms, which is bad when the loop is not preemptible. test_bpf: #264 BPF_MAXINSNS: Call heavy transformations jited:1 19248 18548 PASS test_bpf: #269 BPF_MAXINSNS: ld_abs+get_processor_id jited:1 20896 PASS Lets divide by ten the number of iterations, so that max latency is 20ms. We could use need_resched() to break the loop earlier if we believe 20 ms is too much. Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann