Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/3] selftests/bpf: Fix test for 4-byte load from dst_port on big-endian
From: Martin KaFai Lau <hidden>
Date: 2022-03-01 06:22:35
Also in:
bpf
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 09:27:57PM +0100, Jakub Sitnicki wrote:
The check for 4-byte load from dst_port offset into bpf_sock is failing on
big-endian architecture - s390. The bpf access converter rewrites the
4-byte load to a 2-byte load from sock_common at skc_dport offset, as shown
below.
* s390 / llvm-objdump -S --no-show-raw-insn
00000000000002a0 <sk_dst_port__load_word>:
84: r1 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 48)
85: w0 = 1
86: if w1 == 51966 goto +1 <LBB5_2>
87: w0 = 0
00000000000002c0 <LBB5_2>:
88: exit
* s390 / bpftool prog dump xlated
_Bool sk_dst_port__load_word(struct bpf_sock * sk):
35: (69) r1 = *(u16 *)(r1 +12)
36: (bc) w1 = w1
37: (b4) w0 = 1
38: (16) if w1 == 0xcafe goto pc+1
39: (b4) w0 = 0
40: (95) exit
* s390 / llvm-objdump -S --no-show-raw-insnx86_64
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
00000000000002a0 <sk_dst_port__load_word>: 84: r1 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 48) 85: w0 = 1 86: if w1 == 65226 goto +1 <LBB5_2> 87: w0 = 0 00000000000002c0 <LBB5_2>: 88: exit * x86_64 / bpftool prog dump xlated _Bool sk_dst_port__load_word(struct bpf_sock * sk): 33: (69) r1 = *(u16 *)(r1 +12) 34: (b4) w0 = 1 35: (16) if w1 == 0xfeca goto pc+1 36: (b4) w0 = 0 37: (95) exit This leads to surprisings results. On big-endian platforms, the loaded value is as expected. The user observes no difference between a 4-byte load and 2-byte load. However, on little-endian platforms, the access conversion is not what would be expected, that is the result is left shifted after converting the value to the native byte order. That said, 4-byte loads in BPF from sk->dst_port are not a use case we expect to see, now that the dst_port field is clearly declared as a u16. Account for the quirky behavior of the access converter in the test case, so that the check passes on both endian variants. Fixes: 8f50f16ff39d ("selftests/bpf: Extend verifier and bpf_sock tests for dst_port loads") Signed-off-by: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@cloudflare.com> --- .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_sock_fields.c | 15 ++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_sock_fields.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_sock_fields.c index 186fed1deaab..3dddc173070c 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_sock_fields.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_sock_fields.c@@ -256,10 +256,23 @@ int ingress_read_sock_fields(struct __sk_buff *skb) return CG_OK; } +/* + * NOTE: 4-byte load from bpf_sock at dst_port offset is quirky. The + * result is left shifted on little-endian architectures because the + * access is converted to a 2-byte load. The quirky behavior is kept + * for backward compatibility. + */ static __noinline bool sk_dst_port__load_word(struct bpf_sock *sk) { +#if __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__ + const __u8 SHIFT = 16; +#elif __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_BIG_ENDIAN__ + const __u8 SHIFT = 0; +#else +#error "Unrecognized __BYTE_ORDER__" +#endif __u32 *word = (__u32 *)&sk->dst_port; - return word[0] == bpf_htonl(0xcafe0000); + return word[0] == bpf_htonl(0xcafe << SHIFT);
I believe it should be fine. It is the behavior even before
commit 4421a582718a ("bpf: Make dst_port field in struct bpf_sock 16-bit wide") ?
btw, is it the same as testing "return word[0] == bpf_hton's'(0xcafe);"
} static __noinline bool sk_dst_port__load_half(struct bpf_sock *sk) -- 2.35.1