[PATCH bpf-next v6 6/8] selftests/bpf: Adjust bpf_map layout in verifier_map_ptr

Daniel Borkmann <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.kernel.vger.linux-security-module,org.kernel.vger.bpf
Message-ID <[email protected]>
With write-only excl member removed from struct bpf_map, ops moves
to offset 32 and inner_map_meta to offset 40. Update the expected
verifier message for the former and retarget the latter at the sha
byte array, so the beyond-member-end rejection path stays covered:

  # LDLIBS=-static PKG_CONFIG='pkg-config --static' ./vmtest.sh -- ./test_progs -t verifier_map_ptr
  [...]
  #619/5   verifier_map_ptr/bpf_map_ptr: read non-existent field rejected:OK
  #619/6   verifier_map_ptr/bpf_map_ptr: read non-existent field rejected @unpriv:OK
  #619/7   verifier_map_ptr/bpf_map_ptr: read beyond sha field rejected:OK
  #619/8   verifier_map_ptr/bpf_map_ptr: read beyond sha field rejected @unpriv:OK
  #619/9   verifier_map_ptr/bpf_map_ptr: read ops field accepted:OK
  #619/10  verifier_map_ptr/bpf_map_ptr: read ops field accepted @unpriv:OK
  [...]
  #620     verifier_map_ptr_mixing:OK
  Summary: 2/20 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED

Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <[email protected]>
---
 .../selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_map_ptr.c    | 23 ++++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_map_ptr.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_map_ptr.c
index 166193659870..e0a65835c861 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_map_ptr.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_map_ptr.c
@@ -72,14 +72,15 @@ __naked void bpf_map_ptr_write_rejected(void)
 
 /*
  * struct bpf_map starts with the SHA256 hash sha[32] at offset 0 (a readable
- * byte array), the u32 excl field at offset 32, and the ops pointer at offset
- * 40. Reading a u32 at offset 41 reaches into the middle of the ops pointer,
- * i.e. a partial pointer access, which is rejected.
+ * byte array), followed by the ops pointer at offset 32 and the inner_map_meta
+ * pointer at offset 40. Reading a u32 at offset 41 reaches into the middle of
+ * the inner_map_meta pointer, i.e. a partial pointer access, which is
+ * rejected.
  */
 SEC("socket")
 __description("bpf_map_ptr: read non-existent field rejected")
 __failure
-__msg("cannot access ptr member ops with moff 40 in struct bpf_map with off 41 size 4")
+__msg("cannot access ptr member inner_map_meta with moff 40 in struct bpf_map with off 41 size 4")
 __failure_unpriv
 __msg_unpriv("access is allowed only to CAP_PERFMON and CAP_SYS_ADMIN")
 __flag(BPF_F_ANY_ALIGNMENT)
@@ -97,23 +98,23 @@ __naked void read_non_existent_field_rejected(void)
 }
 
 /*
- * The u32 excl field spans offsets 32..35 (mend 36). Reading a u32 at offset
- * 33 starts inside excl but extends past its end, which the verifier rejects
+ * The sha byte array spans offsets 0..31 (mend 32). Reading a u32 at offset
+ * 30 starts inside sha but extends past its end, which the verifier rejects
  * as an out-of-bounds scalar access.
  */
 SEC("socket")
-__description("bpf_map_ptr: read beyond excl field rejected")
+__description("bpf_map_ptr: read beyond sha field rejected")
 __failure
-__msg("access beyond the end of member excl (mend:36) in struct bpf_map with off 33 size 4")
+__msg("access beyond the end of member sha (mend:32) in struct bpf_map with off 30 size 4")
 __failure_unpriv
 __msg_unpriv("access is allowed only to CAP_PERFMON and CAP_SYS_ADMIN")
 __flag(BPF_F_ANY_ALIGNMENT)
-__naked void read_beyond_excl_field_rejected(void)
+__naked void read_beyond_sha_field_rejected(void)
 {
 	asm volatile ("					\
 	r6 = 0;						\
 	r1 = %[map_array_48b] ll;			\
-	r6 = *(u32*)(r1 + 33);				\
+	r6 = *(u32*)(r1 + 30);				\
 	r0 = 1;						\
 	exit;						\
 "	:
@@ -131,7 +132,7 @@ __naked void ptr_read_ops_field_accepted(void)
 	asm volatile ("					\
 	r6 = 0;						\
 	r1 = %[map_array_48b] ll;			\
-	r6 = *(u64*)(r1 + 40);				\
+	r6 = *(u64*)(r1 + 32);				\
 	r0 = 1;						\
 	exit;						\
 "	:
-- 
2.43.0
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.