[PATCH v2 4/5] bpf: make add/subtract one program validate

[Marat Khalili <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>
Acked-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@huawei.com>
---
 app/test/test_bpf.c    | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c |  8 +++---
 2 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/app/test/test_bpf.c b/app/test/test_bpf.c
index 6ecc49efff..c25f5a6f4d 100644
--- a/app/test/test_bpf.c
+++ b/app/test/test_bpf.c
@@ -152,6 +152,62 @@ test_minimal_working(void)
 
 REGISTER_FAST_TEST(bpf_minimal_working_autotest, true, true, test_minimal_working);
 
+/*
+ * Try and load valid BPF program adding one to the argument.
+ */
+static int
+test_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 bpf_load_test(RTE_DIM(ins), ins, 0);
+}
+
+REGISTER_FAST_TEST(bpf_add_one_autotest, true, true, test_add_one);
+
+/*
+ * Try and load valid BPF program subtracting one from the argument.
+ */
+static int
+test_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 bpf_load_test(RTE_DIM(ins), ins, 0);
+}
+
+REGISTER_FAST_TEST(bpf_subtract_one_autotest, true, true, test_subtract_one);
+
 /*
  * Basic functional tests for librte_bpf.
  * The main procedure - load eBPF program, execute it and
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,
-- 
2.43.0