summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/tools
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorAndrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>2023-04-24 16:51:28 -0700
committerAlexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>2023-04-24 17:46:44 -0700
commitbe7dbd275dc6b911a5b9a22c4f9cb71b2c7fd847 (patch)
treef94cefcf2ec6dc724862ba152c236f1ada2cafec /tools
parenta0c109dcafb15b8bee187c49fb746779374f60f0 (diff)
selftests/bpf: avoid mark_all_scalars_precise() trigger in one of iter tests
iter_pass_iter_ptr_to_subprog subtest is relying on actual array size being passed as subprog parameter. This combined with recent fixes to precision tracking in conditional jumps ([0]) is now causing verifier to backtrack all the way to the point where sum() and fill() subprogs are called, at which point precision backtrack bails out and forces all the states to have precise SCALAR registers. This in turn causes each possible value of i within fill() and sum() subprogs to cause a different non-equivalent state, preventing iterator code to converge. For now, change the test to assume fixed size of passed in array. Once BPF verifier supports precision tracking across subprogram calls, these changes will be reverted as unnecessary. [0] 71b547f56124 ("bpf: Fix incorrect verifier pruning due to missing register precision taints") Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230424235128.1941726-1-andrii@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'tools')
-rw-r--r--tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/iters.c26
1 files changed, 15 insertions, 11 deletions
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/iters.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/iters.c
index 6b9b3c56f009..be16143ae292 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/iters.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/iters.c
@@ -651,25 +651,29 @@ int iter_stack_array_loop(const void *ctx)
return sum;
}
-static __noinline void fill(struct bpf_iter_num *it, int *arr, __u32 n, int mul)
+#define ARR_SZ 16
+
+static __noinline void fill(struct bpf_iter_num *it, int *arr, int mul)
{
- int *t, i;
+ int *t;
+ __u64 i;
while ((t = bpf_iter_num_next(it))) {
i = *t;
- if (i >= n)
+ if (i >= ARR_SZ)
break;
arr[i] = i * mul;
}
}
-static __noinline int sum(struct bpf_iter_num *it, int *arr, __u32 n)
+static __noinline int sum(struct bpf_iter_num *it, int *arr)
{
- int *t, i, sum = 0;;
+ int *t, sum = 0;;
+ __u64 i;
while ((t = bpf_iter_num_next(it))) {
i = *t;
- if (i >= n)
+ if (i >= ARR_SZ)
break;
sum += arr[i];
}
@@ -681,7 +685,7 @@ SEC("raw_tp")
__success
int iter_pass_iter_ptr_to_subprog(const void *ctx)
{
- int arr1[16], arr2[32];
+ int arr1[ARR_SZ], arr2[ARR_SZ];
struct bpf_iter_num it;
int n, sum1, sum2;
@@ -690,25 +694,25 @@ int iter_pass_iter_ptr_to_subprog(const void *ctx)
/* fill arr1 */
n = ARRAY_SIZE(arr1);
bpf_iter_num_new(&it, 0, n);
- fill(&it, arr1, n, 2);
+ fill(&it, arr1, 2);
bpf_iter_num_destroy(&it);
/* fill arr2 */
n = ARRAY_SIZE(arr2);
bpf_iter_num_new(&it, 0, n);
- fill(&it, arr2, n, 10);
+ fill(&it, arr2, 10);
bpf_iter_num_destroy(&it);
/* sum arr1 */
n = ARRAY_SIZE(arr1);
bpf_iter_num_new(&it, 0, n);
- sum1 = sum(&it, arr1, n);
+ sum1 = sum(&it, arr1);
bpf_iter_num_destroy(&it);
/* sum arr2 */
n = ARRAY_SIZE(arr2);
bpf_iter_num_new(&it, 0, n);
- sum2 = sum(&it, arr2, n);
+ sum2 = sum(&it, arr2);
bpf_iter_num_destroy(&it);
bpf_printk("sum1=%d, sum2=%d", sum1, sum2);