-Dbpf_prog_load_deprecated=bpf_prog_test_load trick is both ugly and
breaks when deprecation goes into effect due to macro magic. Convert all
the uses to explicit bpf_prog_test_load() calls which avoid deprecation
errors and makes everything less magical.
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@fb.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211103220845.2676888-12-andrii@kernel.org
Convert all SEC("classifier*") uses to a new and strict SEC("tc")
section name. In reference_tracking selftests switch from ambiguous
searching by program title (section name) to non-ambiguous searching by
name in some selftests, getting closer to completely removing
bpf_object__find_program_by_title().
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210928161946.2512801-4-andrii@kernel.org
The tailcall_3 test program uses bpf_tail_call_static() where the JIT
would patch a direct jump. Add a new tailcall_6 test program replicating
exactly the same test just ensuring that bpf_tail_call() uses a map
index where the verifier cannot make assumptions this time.
In other words, this will now cover both on x86-64 JIT, meaning, JIT
images with emit_bpf_tail_call_direct() emission as well as JIT images
with emit_bpf_tail_call_indirect() emission.
# echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable
# ./test_progs -t tailcalls
#136/1 tailcalls/tailcall_1:OK
#136/2 tailcalls/tailcall_2:OK
#136/3 tailcalls/tailcall_3:OK
#136/4 tailcalls/tailcall_4:OK
#136/5 tailcalls/tailcall_5:OK
#136/6 tailcalls/tailcall_6:OK
#136/7 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_1:OK
#136/8 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_2:OK
#136/9 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_3:OK
#136/10 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_4:OK
#136/11 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_5:OK
#136 tailcalls:OK
Summary: 1/11 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
# echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable
# ./test_progs -t tailcalls
#136/1 tailcalls/tailcall_1:OK
#136/2 tailcalls/tailcall_2:OK
#136/3 tailcalls/tailcall_3:OK
#136/4 tailcalls/tailcall_4:OK
#136/5 tailcalls/tailcall_5:OK
#136/6 tailcalls/tailcall_6:OK
[...]
For interpreter, the tailcall_1-6 tests are passing as well. The later
tailcall_bpf2bpf_* are failing due lack of bpf2bpf + tailcall support
in interpreter, so this is expected.
Also, manual inspection shows that both loaded programs from tailcall_3
and tailcall_6 test case emit the expected opcodes:
* tailcall_3 disasm, emit_bpf_tail_call_direct():
[...]
b: push %rax
c: push %rbx
d: push %r13
f: mov %rdi,%rbx
12: movabs $0xffff8d3f5afb0200,%r13
1c: mov %rbx,%rdi
1f: mov %r13,%rsi
22: xor %edx,%edx _
24: mov -0x4(%rbp),%eax | limit check
2a: cmp $0x20,%eax |
2d: ja 0x0000000000000046 |
2f: add $0x1,%eax |
32: mov %eax,-0x4(%rbp) |_
38: nopl 0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
3d: pop %r13
3f: pop %rbx
40: pop %rax
41: jmpq 0xffffffffffffe377
[...]
* tailcall_6 disasm, emit_bpf_tail_call_indirect():
[...]
47: movabs $0xffff8d3f59143a00,%rsi
51: mov %edx,%edx
53: cmp %edx,0x24(%rsi)
56: jbe 0x0000000000000093 _
58: mov -0x4(%rbp),%eax | limit check
5e: cmp $0x20,%eax |
61: ja 0x0000000000000093 |
63: add $0x1,%eax |
66: mov %eax,-0x4(%rbp) |_
6c: mov 0x110(%rsi,%rdx,8),%rcx
74: test %rcx,%rcx
77: je 0x0000000000000093
79: pop %rax
7a: mov 0x30(%rcx),%rcx
7e: add $0xb,%rcx
82: callq 0x000000000000008e
87: pause
89: lfence
8c: jmp 0x0000000000000087
8e: mov %rcx,(%rsp)
92: retq
[...]
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Tested-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn>
Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
Acked-by: Johan Almbladh <johan.almbladh@anyfinetworks.com>
Acked-by: Paul Chaignon <paul@cilium.io>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAM1=_QRyRVCODcXo_Y6qOm1iT163HoiSj8U2pZ8Rj3hzMTT=HQ@mail.gmail.com
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210910091900.16119-1-daniel@iogearbox.net
This adds some extra noise to the tailcall_bpf2bpf4 tests that will cause
verify to patch insns. This then moves around subprog start/end insn
index and poke descriptor insn index to ensure that verify and JIT will
continue to track these correctly.
If done correctly verifier should pass this program same as before and
JIT should emit tail call logic.
Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210707223848.14580-3-john.fastabend@gmail.com
Add four tests to tailcalls selftest explicitly named
"tailcall_bpf2bpf_X" as their purpose is to validate that combination
of tailcalls with bpf2bpf calls are working properly.
These tests also validate LD_ABS from subprograms.
Signed-off-by: Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Add several BPF kselftest cases for tail calls which test the various
patch directions, and that multiple locations are patched in same and
different programs.
# ./test_progs -n 45
#45/1 tailcall_1:OK
#45/2 tailcall_2:OK
#45/3 tailcall_3:OK
#45/4 tailcall_4:OK
#45/5 tailcall_5:OK
#45 tailcalls:OK
Summary: 1/5 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
I've also verified the JITed dump after each of the rewrite cases that
it matches expectations.
Also regular test_verifier suite passes fine which contains further tail
call tests:
# ./test_verifier
[...]
Summary: 1563 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
Checked under JIT, interpreter and JIT + hardening.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/3d6cbecbeb171117dccfe153306e479798fb608d.1574452833.git.daniel@iogearbox.net
