linux-stable/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/README.rst

310 lines
12 KiB
ReStructuredText
Raw Normal View History

==================
BPF Selftest Notes
==================
General instructions on running selftests can be found in
`Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst`__.
__ /Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst#q-how-to-run-bpf-selftests
=============
BPF CI System
=============
BPF employs a continuous integration (CI) system to check patch submission in an
automated fashion. The system runs selftests for each patch in a series. Results
are propagated to patchwork, where failures are highlighted similar to
violations of other checks (such as additional warnings being emitted or a
``scripts/checkpatch.pl`` reported deficiency):
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?delegate=121173
The CI system executes tests on multiple architectures. It uses a kernel
configuration derived from both the generic and architecture specific config
file fragments below ``tools/testing/selftests/bpf/`` (e.g., ``config`` and
``config.x86_64``).
Denylisting Tests
=================
It is possible for some architectures to not have support for all BPF features.
In such a case tests in CI may fail. An example of such a shortcoming is BPF
trampoline support on IBM's s390x architecture. For cases like this, an in-tree
deny list file, located at ``tools/testing/selftests/bpf/DENYLIST.<arch>``, can
be used to prevent the test from running on such an architecture.
In addition to that, the generic ``tools/testing/selftests/bpf/DENYLIST`` is
honored on every architecture running tests.
These files are organized in three columns. The first column lists the test in
question. This can be the name of a test suite or of an individual test. The
remaining two columns provide additional meta data that helps identify and
classify the entry: column two is a copy and paste of the error being reported
when running the test in the setting in question. The third column, if
available, summarizes the underlying problem. A value of ``trampoline``, for
example, indicates that lack of trampoline support is causing the test to fail.
This last entry helps identify tests that can be re-enabled once such support is
added.
=========================
Running Selftests in a VM
=========================
It's now possible to run the selftests using ``tools/testing/selftests/bpf/vmtest.sh``.
The script tries to ensure that the tests are run with the same environment as they
would be run post-submit in the CI used by the Maintainers, with the exception
that deny lists are not automatically honored.
This script uses the in-tree kernel configuration and downloads a VM userspace
image from the system used by the CI. It builds the kernel (without overwriting
your existing Kconfig), recompiles the bpf selftests, runs them (by default
``tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs``) and saves the resulting output (by
default in ``~/.bpf_selftests``).
Script dependencies:
- clang (preferably built from sources, https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project);
- pahole (preferably built from sources, https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/devel/pahole/pahole.git/);
- qemu;
- docutils (for ``rst2man``);
- libcap-devel.
For more information about using the script, run:
.. code-block:: console
$ tools/testing/selftests/bpf/vmtest.sh -h
In case of linker errors when running selftests, try using static linking:
.. code-block:: console
$ LDLIBS=-static PKG_CONFIG='pkg-config --static' vmtest.sh
.. note:: Some distros may not support static linking.
.. note:: The script uses pahole and clang based on host environment setting.
If you want to change pahole and llvm, you can change `PATH` environment
variable in the beginning of script.
.. note:: The script currently only supports x86_64 and s390x architectures.
Additional information about selftest failures are
documented here.
profiler[23] test failures with clang/llvm <12.0.0
==================================================
With clang/llvm <12.0.0, the profiler[23] test may fail.
The symptom looks like
.. code-block:: c
// r9 is a pointer to map_value
// r7 is a scalar
17: bf 96 00 00 00 00 00 00 r6 = r9
18: 0f 76 00 00 00 00 00 00 r6 += r7
math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed
// the instructions below will not be seen in the verifier log
19: a5 07 01 00 01 01 00 00 if r7 < 257 goto +1
20: bf 96 00 00 00 00 00 00 r6 = r9
// r6 is used here
The verifier will reject such code with above error.
At insn 18 the r7 is indeed unbounded. The later insn 19 checks the bounds and
the insn 20 undoes map_value addition. It is currently impossible for the
verifier to understand such speculative pointer arithmetic.
Hence `this patch`__ addresses it on the compiler side. It was committed on llvm 12.
__ https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/ddf1864ace484035e3cde5e83b3a31ac81e059c6
The corresponding C code
.. code-block:: c
for (int i = 0; i < MAX_CGROUPS_PATH_DEPTH; i++) {
filepart_length = bpf_probe_read_str(payload, ...);
if (filepart_length <= MAX_PATH) {
barrier_var(filepart_length); // workaround
payload += filepart_length;
}
}
bpf_iter test failures with clang/llvm 10.0.0
=============================================
With clang/llvm 10.0.0, the following two bpf_iter tests failed:
* ``bpf_iter/ipv6_route``
* ``bpf_iter/netlink``
The symptom for ``bpf_iter/ipv6_route`` looks like
.. code-block:: c
2: (79) r8 = *(u64 *)(r1 +8)
...
14: (bf) r2 = r8
15: (0f) r2 += r1
; BPF_SEQ_PRINTF(seq, "%pi6 %02x ", &rt->fib6_dst.addr, rt->fib6_dst.plen);
16: (7b) *(u64 *)(r8 +64) = r2
only read is supported
The symptom for ``bpf_iter/netlink`` looks like
.. code-block:: c
; struct netlink_sock *nlk = ctx->sk;
2: (79) r7 = *(u64 *)(r1 +8)
...
15: (bf) r2 = r7
16: (0f) r2 += r1
; BPF_SEQ_PRINTF(seq, "%pK %-3d ", s, s->sk_protocol);
17: (7b) *(u64 *)(r7 +0) = r2
only read is supported
This is due to a llvm BPF backend bug. `The fix`__
has been pushed to llvm 10.x release branch and will be
available in 10.0.1. The patch is available in llvm 11.0.0 trunk.
__ https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/3cb7e7bf959dcd3b8080986c62e10a75c7af43f0
bpf_verif_scale/loop6.bpf.o test failure with Clang 12
======================================================
selftests/bpf: Add a verifier scale test with unknown bounded loop The original bcc pull request https://github.com/iovisor/bcc/pull/3270 exposed a verifier failure with Clang 12/13 while Clang 4 works fine. Further investigation exposed two issues: Issue 1: LLVM may generate code which uses less refined value. The issue is fixed in LLVM patch: https://reviews.llvm.org/D97479 Issue 2: Spills with initial value 0 are marked as precise which makes later state pruning less effective. This is my rough initial analysis and further investigation is needed to find how to improve verifier pruning in such cases. With the above LLVM patch, for the new loop6.c test, which has smaller loop bound compared to original test, I got: $ test_progs -s -n 10/16 ... stack depth 64 processed 390735 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 87 total_states 8658 peak_states 964 mark_read 6 #10/16 loop6.o:OK Use the original loop bound, i.e., commenting out "#define WORKAROUND", I got: $ test_progs -s -n 10/16 ... BPF program is too large. Processed 1000001 insn stack depth 64 processed 1000001 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 91 total_states 23176 peak_states 5069 mark_read 6 ... #10/16 loop6.o:FAIL The purpose of this patch is to provide a regression test for the above LLVM fix and also provide a test case for further analyzing the verifier pruning issue. Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Cc: Zhenwei Pi <pizhenwei@bytedance.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210226223810.236472-1-yhs@fb.com
2021-02-26 22:38:10 +00:00
With Clang 12, the following bpf_verif_scale test failed:
* ``bpf_verif_scale/loop6.bpf.o``
selftests/bpf: Add a verifier scale test with unknown bounded loop The original bcc pull request https://github.com/iovisor/bcc/pull/3270 exposed a verifier failure with Clang 12/13 while Clang 4 works fine. Further investigation exposed two issues: Issue 1: LLVM may generate code which uses less refined value. The issue is fixed in LLVM patch: https://reviews.llvm.org/D97479 Issue 2: Spills with initial value 0 are marked as precise which makes later state pruning less effective. This is my rough initial analysis and further investigation is needed to find how to improve verifier pruning in such cases. With the above LLVM patch, for the new loop6.c test, which has smaller loop bound compared to original test, I got: $ test_progs -s -n 10/16 ... stack depth 64 processed 390735 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 87 total_states 8658 peak_states 964 mark_read 6 #10/16 loop6.o:OK Use the original loop bound, i.e., commenting out "#define WORKAROUND", I got: $ test_progs -s -n 10/16 ... BPF program is too large. Processed 1000001 insn stack depth 64 processed 1000001 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 91 total_states 23176 peak_states 5069 mark_read 6 ... #10/16 loop6.o:FAIL The purpose of this patch is to provide a regression test for the above LLVM fix and also provide a test case for further analyzing the verifier pruning issue. Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Cc: Zhenwei Pi <pizhenwei@bytedance.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210226223810.236472-1-yhs@fb.com
2021-02-26 22:38:10 +00:00
The verifier output looks like
.. code-block:: c
R1 type=ctx expected=fp
The sequence of 8193 jumps is too complex.
The reason is compiler generating the following code
.. code-block:: c
; for (i = 0; (i < VIRTIO_MAX_SGS) && (i < num); i++) {
14: 16 05 40 00 00 00 00 00 if w5 == 0 goto +64 <LBB0_6>
15: bc 51 00 00 00 00 00 00 w1 = w5
16: 04 01 00 00 ff ff ff ff w1 += -1
17: 67 05 00 00 20 00 00 00 r5 <<= 32
18: 77 05 00 00 20 00 00 00 r5 >>= 32
19: a6 01 01 00 05 00 00 00 if w1 < 5 goto +1 <LBB0_4>
20: b7 05 00 00 06 00 00 00 r5 = 6
00000000000000a8 <LBB0_4>:
21: b7 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0
22: b7 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0
; for (i = 0; (i < VIRTIO_MAX_SGS) && (i < num); i++) {
23: 7b 1a e0 ff 00 00 00 00 *(u64 *)(r10 - 32) = r1
24: 7b 5a c0 ff 00 00 00 00 *(u64 *)(r10 - 64) = r5
Note that insn #15 has w1 = w5 and w1 is refined later but
r5(w5) is eventually saved on stack at insn #24 for later use.
This cause later verifier failure. The bug has been `fixed`__ in
Clang 13.
__ https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/1959ead525b8830cc8a345f45e1c3ef9902d3229
selftests/bpf: Add a verifier scale test with unknown bounded loop The original bcc pull request https://github.com/iovisor/bcc/pull/3270 exposed a verifier failure with Clang 12/13 while Clang 4 works fine. Further investigation exposed two issues: Issue 1: LLVM may generate code which uses less refined value. The issue is fixed in LLVM patch: https://reviews.llvm.org/D97479 Issue 2: Spills with initial value 0 are marked as precise which makes later state pruning less effective. This is my rough initial analysis and further investigation is needed to find how to improve verifier pruning in such cases. With the above LLVM patch, for the new loop6.c test, which has smaller loop bound compared to original test, I got: $ test_progs -s -n 10/16 ... stack depth 64 processed 390735 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 87 total_states 8658 peak_states 964 mark_read 6 #10/16 loop6.o:OK Use the original loop bound, i.e., commenting out "#define WORKAROUND", I got: $ test_progs -s -n 10/16 ... BPF program is too large. Processed 1000001 insn stack depth 64 processed 1000001 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 91 total_states 23176 peak_states 5069 mark_read 6 ... #10/16 loop6.o:FAIL The purpose of this patch is to provide a regression test for the above LLVM fix and also provide a test case for further analyzing the verifier pruning issue. Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Cc: Zhenwei Pi <pizhenwei@bytedance.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210226223810.236472-1-yhs@fb.com
2021-02-26 22:38:10 +00:00
BPF CO-RE-based tests and Clang version
=======================================
A set of selftests use BPF target-specific built-ins, which might require
bleeding-edge Clang versions (Clang 12 nightly at this time).
Few sub-tests of core_reloc test suit (part of test_progs test runner) require
the following built-ins, listed with corresponding Clang diffs introducing
them to Clang/LLVM. These sub-tests are going to be skipped if Clang is too
old to support them, they shouldn't cause build failures or runtime test
failures:
- __builtin_btf_type_id() [0_, 1_, 2_];
- __builtin_preserve_type_info(), __builtin_preserve_enum_value() [3_, 4_].
.. _0: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/6b01b465388b204d543da3cf49efd6080db094a9
.. _1: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/072cde03aaa13a2c57acf62d79876bf79aa1919f
.. _2: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/00602ee7ef0bf6c68d690a2bd729c12b95c95c99
.. _3: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/6d218b4adb093ff2e9764febbbc89f429412006c
.. _4: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/6d6750696400e7ce988d66a1a00e1d0cb32815f8
Floating-point tests and Clang version
======================================
Certain selftests, e.g. core_reloc, require support for the floating-point
types, which was introduced in `Clang 13`__. The older Clang versions will
either crash when compiling these tests, or generate an incorrect BTF.
__ https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/a7137b238a07d9399d3ae96c0b461571bd5aa8b2
Kernel function call test and Clang version
===========================================
Some selftests (e.g. kfunc_call and bpf_tcp_ca) require a LLVM support
to generate extern function in BTF. It was introduced in `Clang 13`__.
Without it, the error from compiling bpf selftests looks like:
.. code-block:: console
libbpf: failed to find BTF for extern 'tcp_slow_start' [25] section: -2
__ https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/886f9ff53155075bd5f1e994f17b85d1e1b7470c
btf_tag test and Clang version
==============================
The btf_tag selftest requires LLVM support to recognize the btf_decl_tag and
btf_type_tag attributes. They are introduced in `Clang 14` [0_, 1_].
The subtests ``btf_type_tag_user_{mod1, mod2, vmlinux}`` also requires
pahole version ``1.23``.
Without them, the btf_tag selftest will be skipped and you will observe:
.. code-block:: console
#<test_num> btf_tag:SKIP
.. _0: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/a162b67c98066218d0d00aa13b99afb95d9bb5e6
.. _1: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/3466e00716e12e32fdb100e3fcfca5c2b3e8d784
Clang dependencies for static linking tests
===========================================
linked_vars, linked_maps, and linked_funcs tests depend on `Clang fix`__ to
generate valid BTF information for weak variables. Please make sure you use
Clang that contains the fix.
__ https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/968292cb93198442138128d850fd54dc7edc0035
Clang relocation changes
========================
Clang 13 patch `clang reloc patch`_ made some changes on relocations such
that existing relocation types are broken into more types and
each new type corresponds to only one way to resolve relocation.
See `kernel llvm reloc`_ for more explanation and some examples.
Using clang 13 to compile old libbpf which has static linker support,
there will be a compilation failure::
libbpf: ELF relo #0 in section #6 has unexpected type 2 in .../bpf_tcp_nogpl.bpf.o
Here, ``type 2`` refers to new relocation type ``R_BPF_64_ABS64``.
To fix this issue, user newer libbpf.
.. Links
.. _clang reloc patch: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/6a2ea84600ba4bd3b2733bd8f08f5115eb32164b
.. _kernel llvm reloc: /Documentation/bpf/llvm_reloc.rst
bpf: selftest: A bpf prog that has a 32bit scalar spill It is a simplified example that can trigger a 32bit scalar spill. The const scalar is refilled and added to a skb->data later. Since the reg state of the 32bit scalar spill is not saved now, adding the refilled reg to skb->data and then comparing it with skb->data_end cannot verify the skb->data access. With the earlier verifier patch and the llvm patch [1]. The verifier can correctly verify the bpf prog. Here is the snippet of the verifier log that leads to verifier conclusion that the packet data is unsafe to read. The log is from the kerne without the previous verifier patch to save the <8-byte scalar spill. 67: R0=inv1 R1=inv17 R2=invP2 R3=inv1 R4=pkt(id=0,off=68,r=102,imm=0) R5=inv102 R6=pkt(id=0,off=62,r=102,imm=0) R7=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=102,imm=0) R8=pkt_end(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R9=inv17 R10=fp0 67: (63) *(u32 *)(r10 -12) = r5 68: R0=inv1 R1=inv17 R2=invP2 R3=inv1 R4=pkt(id=0,off=68,r=102,imm=0) R5=inv102 R6=pkt(id=0,off=62,r=102,imm=0) R7=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=102,imm=0) R8=pkt_end(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R9=inv17 R10=fp0 fp-16=mmmm???? ... 101: R0_w=map_value_or_null(id=2,off=0,ks=16,vs=1,imm=0) R6_w=pkt(id=0,off=70,r=102,imm=0) R7=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=102,imm=0) R8=pkt_end(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R9=inv17 R10=fp0 fp-16=mmmmmmmm 101: (61) r1 = *(u32 *)(r10 -12) 102: R0_w=map_value_or_null(id=2,off=0,ks=16,vs=1,imm=0) R1_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R6_w=pkt(id=0,off=70,r=102,imm=0) R7=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=102,imm=0) R8=pkt_end(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R9=inv17 R10=fp0 fp-16=mmmmmmmm 102: (bc) w1 = w1 103: R0_w=map_value_or_null(id=2,off=0,ks=16,vs=1,imm=0) R1_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R6_w=pkt(id=0,off=70,r=102,imm=0) R7=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=102,imm=0) R8=pkt_end(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R9=inv17 R10=fp0 fp-16=mmmmmmmm 103: (0f) r7 += r1 last_idx 103 first_idx 67 regs=2 stack=0 before 102: (bc) w1 = w1 regs=2 stack=0 before 101: (61) r1 = *(u32 *)(r10 -12) 104: R0_w=map_value_or_null(id=2,off=0,ks=16,vs=1,imm=0) R1_w=invP(id=0,umax_value=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R6_w=pkt(id=0,off=70,r=102,imm=0) R7_w=pkt(id=3,off=0,r=0,umax_value=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=pkt_end(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R9=inv17 R10=fp0 fp-16=mmmmmmmm ... 127: R0_w=inv1 R1=invP(id=0,umax_value=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R6=pkt(id=0,off=70,r=102,imm=0) R7=pkt(id=3,off=0,r=0,umax_value=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=pkt_end(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R9_w=invP17 R10=fp0 fp-16=mmmmmmmm 127: (bf) r1 = r7 128: R0_w=inv1 R1_w=pkt(id=3,off=0,r=0,umax_value=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R6=pkt(id=0,off=70,r=102,imm=0) R7=pkt(id=3,off=0,r=0,umax_value=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=pkt_end(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R9_w=invP17 R10=fp0 fp-16=mmmmmmmm 128: (07) r1 += 8 129: R0_w=inv1 R1_w=pkt(id=3,off=8,r=0,umax_value=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R6=pkt(id=0,off=70,r=102,imm=0) R7=pkt(id=3,off=0,r=0,umax_value=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=pkt_end(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R9_w=invP17 R10=fp0 fp-16=mmmmmmmm 129: (b4) w0 = 1 130: R0=inv1 R1=pkt(id=3,off=8,r=0,umax_value=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R6=pkt(id=0,off=70,r=102,imm=0) R7=pkt(id=3,off=0,r=0,umax_value=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=pkt_end(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R9=invP17 R10=fp0 fp-16=mmmmmmmm 130: (2d) if r1 > r8 goto pc-66 R0=inv1 R1=pkt(id=3,off=8,r=0,umax_value=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R6=pkt(id=0,off=70,r=102,imm=0) R7=pkt(id=3,off=0,r=0,umax_value=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=pkt_end(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R9=invP17 R10=fp0 fp-16=mmmmmmmm 131: R0=inv1 R1=pkt(id=3,off=8,r=0,umax_value=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R6=pkt(id=0,off=70,r=102,imm=0) R7=pkt(id=3,off=0,r=0,umax_value=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=pkt_end(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R9=invP17 R10=fp0 fp-16=mmmmmmmm 131: (69) r6 = *(u16 *)(r7 +0) invalid access to packet, off=0 size=2, R7(id=3,off=0,r=0) R7 offset is outside of the packet [1]: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109073 Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210922004947.626286-1-kafai@fb.com
2021-09-22 00:49:47 +00:00
Clang dependencies for the u32 spill test (xdpwall)
===================================================
The xdpwall selftest requires a change in `Clang 14`__.
Without it, the xdpwall selftest will fail and the error message
from running test_progs will look like:
.. code-block:: console
test_xdpwall:FAIL:Does LLVM have https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/ea72b0319d7b0f0c2fcf41d121afa5d031b319d5? unexpected error: -4007
bpf: selftest: A bpf prog that has a 32bit scalar spill It is a simplified example that can trigger a 32bit scalar spill. The const scalar is refilled and added to a skb->data later. Since the reg state of the 32bit scalar spill is not saved now, adding the refilled reg to skb->data and then comparing it with skb->data_end cannot verify the skb->data access. With the earlier verifier patch and the llvm patch [1]. The verifier can correctly verify the bpf prog. Here is the snippet of the verifier log that leads to verifier conclusion that the packet data is unsafe to read. The log is from the kerne without the previous verifier patch to save the <8-byte scalar spill. 67: R0=inv1 R1=inv17 R2=invP2 R3=inv1 R4=pkt(id=0,off=68,r=102,imm=0) R5=inv102 R6=pkt(id=0,off=62,r=102,imm=0) R7=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=102,imm=0) R8=pkt_end(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R9=inv17 R10=fp0 67: (63) *(u32 *)(r10 -12) = r5 68: R0=inv1 R1=inv17 R2=invP2 R3=inv1 R4=pkt(id=0,off=68,r=102,imm=0) R5=inv102 R6=pkt(id=0,off=62,r=102,imm=0) R7=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=102,imm=0) R8=pkt_end(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R9=inv17 R10=fp0 fp-16=mmmm???? ... 101: R0_w=map_value_or_null(id=2,off=0,ks=16,vs=1,imm=0) R6_w=pkt(id=0,off=70,r=102,imm=0) R7=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=102,imm=0) R8=pkt_end(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R9=inv17 R10=fp0 fp-16=mmmmmmmm 101: (61) r1 = *(u32 *)(r10 -12) 102: R0_w=map_value_or_null(id=2,off=0,ks=16,vs=1,imm=0) R1_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R6_w=pkt(id=0,off=70,r=102,imm=0) R7=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=102,imm=0) R8=pkt_end(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R9=inv17 R10=fp0 fp-16=mmmmmmmm 102: (bc) w1 = w1 103: R0_w=map_value_or_null(id=2,off=0,ks=16,vs=1,imm=0) R1_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R6_w=pkt(id=0,off=70,r=102,imm=0) R7=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=102,imm=0) R8=pkt_end(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R9=inv17 R10=fp0 fp-16=mmmmmmmm 103: (0f) r7 += r1 last_idx 103 first_idx 67 regs=2 stack=0 before 102: (bc) w1 = w1 regs=2 stack=0 before 101: (61) r1 = *(u32 *)(r10 -12) 104: R0_w=map_value_or_null(id=2,off=0,ks=16,vs=1,imm=0) R1_w=invP(id=0,umax_value=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R6_w=pkt(id=0,off=70,r=102,imm=0) R7_w=pkt(id=3,off=0,r=0,umax_value=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=pkt_end(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R9=inv17 R10=fp0 fp-16=mmmmmmmm ... 127: R0_w=inv1 R1=invP(id=0,umax_value=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R6=pkt(id=0,off=70,r=102,imm=0) R7=pkt(id=3,off=0,r=0,umax_value=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=pkt_end(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R9_w=invP17 R10=fp0 fp-16=mmmmmmmm 127: (bf) r1 = r7 128: R0_w=inv1 R1_w=pkt(id=3,off=0,r=0,umax_value=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R6=pkt(id=0,off=70,r=102,imm=0) R7=pkt(id=3,off=0,r=0,umax_value=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=pkt_end(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R9_w=invP17 R10=fp0 fp-16=mmmmmmmm 128: (07) r1 += 8 129: R0_w=inv1 R1_w=pkt(id=3,off=8,r=0,umax_value=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R6=pkt(id=0,off=70,r=102,imm=0) R7=pkt(id=3,off=0,r=0,umax_value=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=pkt_end(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R9_w=invP17 R10=fp0 fp-16=mmmmmmmm 129: (b4) w0 = 1 130: R0=inv1 R1=pkt(id=3,off=8,r=0,umax_value=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R6=pkt(id=0,off=70,r=102,imm=0) R7=pkt(id=3,off=0,r=0,umax_value=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=pkt_end(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R9=invP17 R10=fp0 fp-16=mmmmmmmm 130: (2d) if r1 > r8 goto pc-66 R0=inv1 R1=pkt(id=3,off=8,r=0,umax_value=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R6=pkt(id=0,off=70,r=102,imm=0) R7=pkt(id=3,off=0,r=0,umax_value=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=pkt_end(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R9=invP17 R10=fp0 fp-16=mmmmmmmm 131: R0=inv1 R1=pkt(id=3,off=8,r=0,umax_value=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R6=pkt(id=0,off=70,r=102,imm=0) R7=pkt(id=3,off=0,r=0,umax_value=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=pkt_end(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R9=invP17 R10=fp0 fp-16=mmmmmmmm 131: (69) r6 = *(u16 *)(r7 +0) invalid access to packet, off=0 size=2, R7(id=3,off=0,r=0) R7 offset is outside of the packet [1]: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109073 Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210922004947.626286-1-kafai@fb.com
2021-09-22 00:49:47 +00:00
__ https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/ea72b0319d7b0f0c2fcf41d121afa5d031b319d5