Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: bpf: test_verifier: sanitation: alu with different scalars | From | Daniel Borkmann <> | Date | Tue, 25 Jun 2019 11:39:24 +0200 |
| |
On 06/25/2019 10:29 AM, Yauheni Kaliuta wrote: > Hi! > > I'm wondering, how the sanitaion tests (#903 5.2-rc6 for example) > are supposed to work on BE arches: > > { > "sanitation: alu with different scalars 1", > .insns = { > BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1), > BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_ARG1, 0), > BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_ARG2, BPF_REG_FP), > BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_ARG2, -16), > BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_FP, -16, 0), > BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem), > BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1), > BPF_EXIT_INSN(), > BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0, 0), > > reads one byte 0 on BE and 28 on LE (from ->index) since > > struct test_val { > unsigned int index; > int foo[MAX_ENTRIES]; > }; > > struct test_val value = { > .index = (6 + 1) * sizeof(int), > .foo[6] = 0xabcdef12, > }; > > BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_1, 0, 3), > > So different branches are taken depending of the endianness. > > BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 0), > BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_3, 0x100000), > BPF_JMP_A(2), > BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 42), > BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_3, 0x100001), > BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_3), > BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2), > BPF_EXIT_INSN(), > }, > .fixup_map_array_48b = { 1 }, > .result = ACCEPT, > .retval = 0x100000, > },
Let me get my hands on a s390x box later today and get back to you.
Thanks, Daniel
| |