Messages in this thread | | | From | Yauheni Kaliuta <> | Date | Fri, 26 Jul 2019 13:41:41 +0300 | Subject | Re: bpf: test_verifier: sanitation: alu with different scalars |
| |
Hi, Daniel,
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 12:39 PM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> wrote: > > 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.
Any progress with that?
-- WBR, Yauheni
| |