On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 12:46 PM Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 2025-06-25 at 12:38 -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 11:24 AM Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > The following cases are tested: > > > - it is ok to load memory at any offset from rdonly_untrusted_mem; > > > - rdonly_untrusted_mem offset/bounds are not tracked; > > > - writes into rdonly_untrusted_mem are forbidden; > > > - atomic operations on rdonly_untrusted_mem are forbidden; > > > - rdonly_untrusted_mem can't be passed as a memory argument of a > > > helper of kfunc; > > > - it is ok to use PTR_TO_MEM and PTR_TO_BTF_ID in a same load > > > instruction. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > .../bpf/prog_tests/mem_rdonly_untrusted.c | 9 ++ > > > .../bpf/progs/mem_rdonly_untrusted.c | 136 ++++++++++++++++++ > > > 2 files changed, 145 insertions(+) > > > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mem_rdonly_untrusted.c > > > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/mem_rdonly_untrusted.c > > > > > > > Would be good to have a test that demonstrates loads of all > > combinations of signed/unsigned and 1/2/4/8 bytes. Maybe as a follow > > up? > > Will respin. Applied. Pls send a follow up. Easier to review this way.
