From: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@huawei.com>
To: Marat Khalili <marat.khalili@huawei.com>
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 3/3] bpf: make add/subtract one program validate
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2025 15:37:32 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4635dce2472e4e18a36afe454730001c@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251110153046.63518-4-marat.khalili@huawei.com>
> Add tests loading simple BPF programs adding or subtracting one to its
> argument and fix triggered signed integer overflow undefined behaviours:
>
> lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c:324:24: runtime error: signed integer
> overflow: 1 + 9223372036854775807 cannot be represented in type
> 'long int'
>
> lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c:352:24: runtime error: signed integer
> overflow: -9223372036854775808 - 1 cannot be represented in type
> 'long int'
>
> As a minimal possible fix perform operation on unsigned integers where
> overflow is well-defined, which was probably the original intent.
>
> Signed-off-by: Marat Khalili <marat.khalili@huawei.com>
> ---
> app/test/test_bpf_simple.c | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c | 8 +++---
> 2 files changed, 62 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/app/test/test_bpf_simple.c b/app/test/test_bpf_simple.c
> index 576a6ed029..d4c5bbdc6e 100644
> --- a/app/test/test_bpf_simple.c
> +++ b/app/test/test_bpf_simple.c
> @@ -129,3 +129,61 @@ test_simple_minimal_working(void)
>
> REGISTER_FAST_TEST(bpf_simple_minimal_working_autotest, true, true,
> test_simple_minimal_working);
> +
> +/*
> + * Try and load valid BPF program adding one to the argument.
> + */
> +static int
> +test_simple_add_one(void)
> +{
> + static const struct ebpf_insn ins[] = {
> + {
> + /* Set return value to one. */
> + .code = (EBPF_ALU64 | EBPF_MOV | BPF_K),
> + .dst_reg = EBPF_REG_0,
> + .imm = 1,
> + },
> + {
> + /* Add program argument to the return value. */
> + .code = (EBPF_ALU64 | BPF_ADD | BPF_X),
> + .src_reg = EBPF_REG_1,
> + .dst_reg = EBPF_REG_0,
> + },
> + {
> + .code = (BPF_JMP | EBPF_EXIT),
> + },
> + };
> + return simple_bpf_load_test(RTE_DIM(ins), ins, 0);
> +}
> +
> +REGISTER_FAST_TEST(bpf_simple_add_one_autotest, true, true,
> + test_simple_add_one);
> +
> +/*
> + * Try and load valid BPF program subtracting one from the argument.
> + */
> +static int
> +test_simple_subtract_one(void)
> +{
> + static const struct ebpf_insn ins[] = {
> + {
> + /* Subtract one from the program argument. */
> + .code = (EBPF_ALU64 | BPF_SUB | BPF_K),
> + .dst_reg = EBPF_REG_1,
> + .imm = 1,
> + },
> + {
> + /* Set return value to the result. */
> + .code = (EBPF_ALU64 | EBPF_MOV | BPF_X),
> + .src_reg = EBPF_REG_1,
> + .dst_reg = EBPF_REG_0,
> + },
> + {
> + .code = (BPF_JMP | EBPF_EXIT),
> + },
> + };
> + return simple_bpf_load_test(RTE_DIM(ins), ins, 0);
> +}
> +
> +REGISTER_FAST_TEST(bpf_simple_subtract_one_autotest, true, true,
> + test_simple_subtract_one);
> diff --git a/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c b/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c
> index 23444b3eaa..47ad6fef0f 100644
> --- a/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c
> +++ b/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c
> @@ -243,8 +243,8 @@ eval_add(struct bpf_reg_val *rd, const struct bpf_reg_val
> *rs, uint64_t msk)
>
> rv.u.min = (rd->u.min + rs->u.min) & msk;
> rv.u.max = (rd->u.max + rs->u.max) & msk;
> - rv.s.min = (rd->s.min + rs->s.min) & msk;
> - rv.s.max = (rd->s.max + rs->s.max) & msk;
> + rv.s.min = ((uint64_t)rd->s.min + (uint64_t)rs->s.min) & msk;
> + rv.s.max = ((uint64_t)rd->s.max + (uint64_t)rs->s.max) & msk;
>
> /*
> * if at least one of the operands is not constant,
> @@ -272,8 +272,8 @@ eval_sub(struct bpf_reg_val *rd, const struct bpf_reg_val
> *rs, uint64_t msk)
>
> rv.u.min = (rd->u.min - rs->u.max) & msk;
> rv.u.max = (rd->u.max - rs->u.min) & msk;
> - rv.s.min = (rd->s.min - rs->s.max) & msk;
> - rv.s.max = (rd->s.max - rs->s.min) & msk;
> + rv.s.min = ((uint64_t)rd->s.min - (uint64_t)rs->s.max) & msk;
> + rv.s.max = ((uint64_t)rd->s.max - (uint64_t)rs->s.min) & msk;
>
> /*
> * if at least one of the operands is not constant,
> --
Acked-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@huawei.com>
> 2.43.0
prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-11-12 15:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-11-10 15:30 [PATCH 0/3] bpf: simple tests and fixes Marat Khalili
2025-11-10 15:30 ` [PATCH 1/3] bpf: fix signed shift overflows in ARM JIT Marat Khalili
2025-11-11 6:25 ` Jerin Jacob
2025-11-11 7:53 ` Morten Brørup
2025-11-11 10:10 ` Marat Khalili
2025-11-11 16:29 ` Jerin Jacob
2025-11-11 16:31 ` Jerin Jacob
2025-11-11 16:39 ` Marat Khalili
2025-11-12 5:23 ` Jerin Jacob
2025-11-12 10:16 ` Marat Khalili
2025-11-10 15:30 ` [PATCH 2/3] bpf: disallow empty program Marat Khalili
2025-11-10 16:40 ` Stephen Hemminger
2025-11-10 16:46 ` Marat Khalili
2025-11-12 15:35 ` Konstantin Ananyev
2025-11-10 15:30 ` [PATCH 3/3] bpf: make add/subtract one program validate Marat Khalili
2025-11-12 15:37 ` Konstantin Ananyev [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4635dce2472e4e18a36afe454730001c@huawei.com \
--to=konstantin.ananyev@huawei.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=marat.khalili@huawei.com \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).