summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tailcalls.c
AgeCommit message (Collapse)Author
2025-02-03selftests/bpf: Fix freplace_link segfault in tailcalls prog testTengda Wu
There are two bpf_link__destroy(freplace_link) calls in test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_freplace(). After the first bpf_link__destroy() is called, if the following bpf_map_{update,delete}_elem() throws an exception, it will jump to the "out" label and call bpf_link__destroy() again, causing double free and eventually leading to a segfault. Fix it by directly resetting freplace_link to NULL after the first bpf_link__destroy() call. Fixes: 021611d33e78 ("selftests/bpf: Add test to verify tailcall and freplace restrictions") Signed-off-by: Tengda Wu <wutengda@huaweicloud.com> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> Reviewed-by: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20250122022838.1079157-1-wutengda@huaweicloud.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
2024-11-03selftests/bpf: Add tests for tail calls with locks and refsKumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
Add failure tests to ensure bugs don't slip through for tail calls and lingering locks, RCU sections, preemption disabled sections, and references prevent tail calls. Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241103225940.1408302-4-memxor@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
2024-10-16selftests/bpf: Add test to verify tailcall and freplace restrictionsLeon Hwang
Add a test case to ensure that attaching a tail callee program with an freplace program fails, and that updating an extended program to a prog_array map is also prohibited. This test is designed to prevent the potential infinite loop issue caused by the combination of tail calls and freplace, ensuring the correct behavior and stability of the system. Additionally, fix the broken tailcalls/tailcall_freplace selftest because an extension prog should not be tailcalled. cd tools/testing/selftests/bpf; ./test_progs -t tailcalls 337/25 tailcalls/tailcall_freplace:OK 337/26 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_freplace:OK 337 tailcalls:OK Summary: 1/26 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241015150207.70264-3-leon.hwang@linux.dev Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
2024-08-22selftests/bpf: Add testcase for updating attached freplace prog to ↵Leon Hwang
prog_array map Add a selftest to confirm the issue, which gets -EINVAL when update attached freplace prog to prog_array map, has been fixed. cd tools/testing/selftests/bpf; ./test_progs -t tailcalls 328/25 tailcalls/tailcall_freplace:OK 328 tailcalls:OK Summary: 1/25 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev> Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240728114612.48486-3-leon.hwang@linux.dev Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
2024-07-29selftests/bpf: Add testcases for tailcall hierarchy fixingLeon Hwang
Add some test cases to confirm the tailcall hierarchy issue has been fixed. On x64, the selftests result is: cd tools/testing/selftests/bpf && ./test_progs -t tailcalls 327/18 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_1:OK 327/19 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_fentry:OK 327/20 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_fexit:OK 327/21 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_fentry_fexit:OK 327/22 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_fentry_entry:OK 327/23 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_2:OK 327/24 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_3:OK 327 tailcalls:OK Summary: 1/24 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED On arm64, the selftests result is: cd tools/testing/selftests/bpf && ./test_progs -t tailcalls 327/18 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_1:OK 327/19 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_fentry:OK 327/20 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_fexit:OK 327/21 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_fentry_fexit:OK 327/22 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_fentry_entry:OK 327/23 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_2:OK 327/24 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_3:OK 327 tailcalls:OK Summary: 1/24 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <hffilwlqm@gmail.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240714123902.32305-4-hffilwlqm@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
2023-12-06selftests/bpf: Add test for early update in prog_array_map_poke_runJiri Olsa
Adding test that tries to trigger the BUG_IN during early map update in prog_array_map_poke_run function. The idea is to share prog array map between thread that constantly updates it and another one loading a program that uses that prog array. Eventually we will hit a place where the program is ok to be updated (poke->tailcall_target_stable check) but the address is still not registered in kallsyms, so the bpf_arch_text_poke returns -EINVAL and cause imbalance for the next tail call update check, which will fail with -EBUSY in bpf_arch_text_poke as described in previous fix. Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Acked-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20231206083041.1306660-3-jolsa@kernel.org
2023-09-12selftests/bpf: Add testcases for tailcall infinite loop fixingLeon Hwang
Add 4 test cases to confirm the tailcall infinite loop bug has been fixed. Like tailcall_bpf2bpf cases, do fentry/fexit on the bpf2bpf, and then check the final count result. tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs -t tailcalls 226/13 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_fentry:OK 226/14 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_fexit:OK 226/15 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_fentry_fexit:OK 226/16 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_fentry_entry:OK 226 tailcalls:OK Summary: 1/16 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <hffilwlqm@gmail.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230912150442.2009-4-hffilwlqm@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
2023-09-11selftests/bpf: Correct map_fd to data_fd in tailcallsLeon Hwang
Get and check data_fd. It should not check map_fd again. Meanwhile, correct some 'return' to 'goto out'. Thank the suggestion from Maciej in "bpf, x64: Fix tailcall infinite loop"[0] discussions. [0] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/e496aef8-1f80-0f8e-dcdd-25a8c300319a@gmail.com/T/#m7d3b601066ba66400d436b7e7579b2df4a101033 Fixes: 79d49ba048ec ("bpf, testing: Add various tail call test cases") Fixes: 3b0379111197 ("selftests/bpf: Add tailcall_bpf2bpf tests") Fixes: 5e0b0a4c52d3 ("selftests/bpf: Test tail call counting with bpf2bpf and data on stack") Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <hffilwlqm@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230906154256.95461-1-hffilwlqm@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>
2022-09-02selftests/bpf: Store BPF object files with .bpf.o extensionDaniel Müller
BPF object files are, in a way, the final artifact produced as part of the ahead-of-time compilation process. That makes them somewhat special compared to "regular" object files, which are a intermediate build artifacts that can typically be removed safely. As such, it can make sense to name them differently to make it easier to spot this difference at a glance. Among others, libbpf-bootstrap [0] has established the extension .bpf.o for BPF object files. It seems reasonable to follow this example and establish the same denomination for selftest build artifacts. To that end, this change adjusts the corresponding part of the build system and the test programs loading BPF object files to work with .bpf.o files. [0] https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf-bootstrap Suggested-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Daniel Müller <deso@posteo.net> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220901222253.1199242-1-deso@posteo.net
2022-06-16selftests/bpf: Test tail call counting with bpf2bpf and data on stackJakub Sitnicki
Cover the case when tail call count needs to be passed from BPF function to BPF function, and the caller has data on stack. Specifically when the size of data allocated on BPF stack is not a multiple on 8. Signed-off-by: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@cloudflare.com> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220616162037.535469-3-jakub@cloudflare.com
2022-02-02selftests/bpf: Migrate from bpf_prog_test_runDelyan Kratunov
bpf_prog_test_run is being deprecated in favor of the OPTS-based bpf_prog_test_run_opts. We end up unable to use CHECK in most cases, so replace usages with ASSERT_* calls. Signed-off-by: Delyan Kratunov <delyank@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220202235423.1097270-2-delyank@fb.com
2022-01-12selftests/bpf: Stop using bpf_map__def() APIChristy Lee
libbpf bpf_map__def() API is being deprecated, replace selftests/bpf's usage with the appropriate getters and setters. Signed-off-by: Christy Lee <christylee@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220108004218.355761-5-christylee@fb.com
2021-11-07selftests/bpf: Use explicit bpf_prog_test_load() calls everywhereAndrii Nakryiko
-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
2021-09-28selftests/bpf: Switch SEC("classifier*") usage to a strict SEC("tc")Andrii Nakryiko
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
2021-09-13bpf, selftests: Replicate tailcall limit test for indirect call caseDaniel Borkmann
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
2021-07-09bpf: Selftest to verify mixing bpf2bpf calls and tailcalls with insn patchJohn Fastabend
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
2020-09-17selftests/bpf: Add tailcall_bpf2bpf testsMaciej Fijalkowski
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>
2019-11-24bpf, testing: Add various tail call test casesDaniel Borkmann
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
generated by cgit (git 2.34.1) at 2025-07-25 23:29:56 +0000