On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 07:15:57PM +0000, Edward Cree wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Edward Cree <ec...@solarflare.com>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c | 39
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c
> b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c
> index 8591c89c0828..24c6757b4c51 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c
> @@ -601,6 +601,45 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
> {20,
> "R5=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=4,umin_value=2,umax_value=1082,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc))"},
> },
> },
> + {
> + .descr = "unknown shift negative",
> + /* This isn't really a test of the alignment code, rather of the
> + * signed min/max value handling, but it makes use of the
> + * register-state-extracting code in do_test_single(), which
> + * test_verifier.c doesn't have.
> + */
> + .insns = {
> + LOAD_UNKNOWN(BPF_REG_3),
> + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_3, 0xff),
> + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_LSH, BPF_REG_3, 1),
> + LOAD_UNKNOWN(BPF_REG_4),
> + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_4, 0xff),
> + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_5, BPF_REG_4),
> + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_RSH, BPF_REG_4, 1),
> + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_5, 1),
> + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_RSH, BPF_REG_5, 1),
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + },
> + .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
> + .matches = {
> + {7, "R0=pkt(id=0,off=8,r=8,imm=0)"},
> + {7, "R3=inv(id=0,umax_value=255,var_off=(0x0; 0xff))"},
> + {8, "R3=inv(id=0,smin_value=-255,smax_value=0)"},
> + /* All the verifier knows is, it's even. While we could
> + * conclude something tighter (the sign bit does not
> + * change), the verifier doesn't bother right now.
> + */
> + {9,
> "R3=inv(id=0,smax_value=9223372036854775806,umax_value=18446744073709551614,var_off=(0x0;
> 0xfffffffffffffffe))"},
> + {16, "R3=pkt_end(id=0,off=0,imm=0)"},
> + {16, "R4=inv(id=0,umax_value=255,var_off=(0x0; 0xff))"},
> + {17, "R4=inv(id=0,smin_value=-255,smax_value=0)"},
> + /* both 0 and 0x7f...fff are possible */
> + {19,
> "R4=inv(id=0,umax_value=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x0;
> 0x7fffffffffffffff))"},
> + {20,
> "R5=inv(id=0,umin_value=18446744073709551360,var_off=(0xffffffffffffff00;
> 0xff))"},
> + {21,
> "R5=inv(id=0,umin_value=9223372036854775680,umax_value=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x7fffffffffffff80;
> 0x7f))"},
hmm. it doesn't quite look right here and in this form it
already conflicts with net-next.
I would prefer to take only patch 1 into bpf->net and once
bpf->net->linus->net-next merge happens to add the test there.
