Re: [PATCHv17 bpf-next 5/6] selftests/bpf: Add verifier tests for bpf arg ARG_CONST_MAP_PTR_OR_NULL

Hangbin Liu wrote:

On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 02:24:47PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:

quoted

[...]

quoted

+{
+	"ARG_CONST_MAP_PTR_OR_NULL: null pointer for ex_map",
+	.insns = {
+		BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 0),
+		/* bpf_redirect_map_multi arg1 (in_map) */
+		BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0),
+		/* bpf_redirect_map_multi arg2 (ex_map) */
+		BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 0),
+		/* bpf_redirect_map_multi arg3 (flags) */
+		BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_3, 0),
+		BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_redirect_map_multi),
+		BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+	},
+	.fixup_map_devmap = { 1 },
+	.result = ACCEPT,
+	.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
+	.retval = 4,

Do we need one more case where this is map_or_null? In above
ex_map will be scalar tnum_const=0 and be exactly a null. This
will push verifier here,

  meta->map_ptr = register_is_null(reg) ? NULL : reg->map_ptr;

In the below case it is known to be not null.

Is it also interesting to have a case where register_is_null(reg)
check fails and reg->map_ptr is set, but may be null.

Hi John,

I'm not familiar with the test_verifier syntax. Doesn't
BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0) just assign the register with map NULL?

On second thought because we are only running the verifier here and
not actually calling the helper I guess both paths are in fact
covered here.

Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>