[PATCH bpf-next v1 7/9] selftests/bpf: Add return value checks for failed tests

Xu Kuohai xukuohai at huaweicloud.com
Fri Jul 19 08:17:47 UTC 2024


From: Xu Kuohai <xukuohai at huawei.com>

The return ranges of some bpf lsm test progs can not be deduced by
the verifier accurately. To avoid erroneous rejections, add explicit
return value checks for these progs.

Signed-off-by: Xu Kuohai <xukuohai at huawei.com>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/err.h                | 10 ++++++++++
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_sig_in_xattr.c  |  4 ++++
 .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_verify_pkcs7_sig.c        |  8 ++++++--
 .../selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_global_subprogs.c     |  7 ++++++-
 4 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/err.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/err.h
index d66d283d9e59..38529779a236 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/err.h
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/err.h
@@ -5,6 +5,16 @@
 #define MAX_ERRNO 4095
 #define IS_ERR_VALUE(x) (unsigned long)(void *)(x) >= (unsigned long)-MAX_ERRNO
 
+#define __STR(x) #x
+
+#define set_if_not_errno_or_zero(x, y)			\
+({							\
+	asm volatile ("if %0 s< -4095 goto +1\n"	\
+		      "if %0 s<= 0 goto +1\n"		\
+		      "%0 = " __STR(y) "\n"		\
+		      : "+r"(x));			\
+})
+
 static inline int IS_ERR_OR_NULL(const void *ptr)
 {
 	return !ptr || IS_ERR_VALUE((unsigned long)ptr);
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_sig_in_xattr.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_sig_in_xattr.c
index 2f0eb1334d65..8ef6b39335b6 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_sig_in_xattr.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_sig_in_xattr.c
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
 #include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
 #include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
 #include "bpf_kfuncs.h"
+#include "err.h"
 
 char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
 
@@ -79,5 +80,8 @@ int BPF_PROG(test_file_open, struct file *f)
 	ret = bpf_verify_pkcs7_signature(&digest_ptr, &sig_ptr, trusted_keyring);
 
 	bpf_key_put(trusted_keyring);
+
+	set_if_not_errno_or_zero(ret, -EFAULT);
+
 	return ret;
 }
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_verify_pkcs7_sig.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_verify_pkcs7_sig.c
index f42e9f3831a1..12034a73ee2d 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_verify_pkcs7_sig.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_verify_pkcs7_sig.c
@@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
 #include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
 #include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
 #include "bpf_kfuncs.h"
+#include "err.h"
 
 #define MAX_DATA_SIZE (1024 * 1024)
 #define MAX_SIG_SIZE 1024
@@ -55,12 +56,12 @@ int BPF_PROG(bpf, int cmd, union bpf_attr *attr, unsigned int size)
 
 	ret = bpf_probe_read_kernel(&value, sizeof(value), &attr->value);
 	if (ret)
-		return ret;
+		goto out;
 
 	ret = bpf_copy_from_user(data_val, sizeof(struct data),
 				 (void *)(unsigned long)value);
 	if (ret)
-		return ret;
+		goto out;
 
 	if (data_val->data_len > sizeof(data_val->data))
 		return -EINVAL;
@@ -84,5 +85,8 @@ int BPF_PROG(bpf, int cmd, union bpf_attr *attr, unsigned int size)
 
 	bpf_key_put(trusted_keyring);
 
+out:
+	set_if_not_errno_or_zero(ret, -EFAULT);
+
 	return ret;
 }
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_global_subprogs.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_global_subprogs.c
index a9fc30ed4d73..20904cd2baa2 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_global_subprogs.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_global_subprogs.c
@@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
 #include "bpf_misc.h"
 #include "xdp_metadata.h"
 #include "bpf_kfuncs.h"
+#include "err.h"
 
 /* The compiler may be able to detect the access to uninitialized
    memory in the routines performing out of bound memory accesses and
@@ -331,7 +332,11 @@ SEC("?lsm/bpf")
 __success __log_level(2)
 int BPF_PROG(arg_tag_ctx_lsm)
 {
-	return tracing_subprog_void(ctx) + tracing_subprog_u64(ctx);
+	int ret;
+
+	ret = tracing_subprog_void(ctx) + tracing_subprog_u64(ctx);
+	set_if_not_errno_or_zero(ret, -1);
+	return ret;
 }
 
 SEC("?struct_ops/test_1")
-- 
2.30.2




More information about the Linux-security-module-archive mailing list