"Jerome Marchand" <jmarchan@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> The second argument of bpf_sysctl_get_name() helper is a pointer to a
> buffer that is being written to. However that isn't specify in the
> prototype.
>
> Until commit 37cce22dbd51a ("bpf: verifier: Refactor helper access
> type tracking"), all helper accesses were considered as a possible
> write access by the verifier, so no big harm was done. However, since
> then, the verifier might make wrong asssumption about the content of
> that address which might lead it to make faulty optimizations (such as
> removing code that was wrongly labeled dead). This is what happens in
> test_sysctl selftest to the tests related to sysctl_get_name.
>
> Correctly mark the second argument of bpf_sysctl_get_name() as
> ARG_PTR_TO_UNINIT_MEM.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
Looks like we don't run bpf_sysctl_get_name tests on the CI.
CI executes the following binaries:
- test_progs{,-no_alu32,-cpuv4}
- test_verifier
- test_maps
test_progs is what is actively developed.
I agree with the reasoning behind this patch, however, could you please
add a selftest demonstrating unsafe behaviour?
You can use tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_and.c as an
example of verifier test checking for specific log message.
(framework also supports execution if __retval is specified,
tests can be written in plain C as well, e.g. as in .../iters.c).
