[PATCH bpf-next 3/5] selftests/bpf: don't mask result of bpf_csum_diff() in test_verifier
Helge Deller
deller at gmx.de
Mon Oct 21 07:04:22 PDT 2024
On 10/21/24 15:14, Puranjay Mohan wrote:
> Helge Deller <deller at gmx.de> writes:
>
>> On 10/21/24 14:21, Puranjay Mohan wrote:
>>> The bpf_csum_diff() helper has been fixed to return a 16-bit value for
>>> all archs, so now we don't need to mask the result.
>>>
>>> ...
>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_array_access.c
>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_array_access.c
>>> @@ -368,8 +368,7 @@ __naked void a_read_only_array_2_1(void)
>>> r4 = 0; \
>>> r5 = 0; \
>>> call %[bpf_csum_diff]; \
>>> -l0_%=: r0 &= 0xffff; \
>>> - exit; \
>>> +l0_%=: exit; \
>>
>> Instead of dropping the masking, would it make sense to
>> check here if (r0 >> 16) == 0 ?
>
> We define the expected value in R0 to be 65507(0xffe3) in the line at the top:
> __success __retval(65507)
>
> So, we should just not do anything to R0 and it should contain this value
> after returning from bpf_csum_diff()
>
> This masking hack was added in:
>
> 6185266c5a853 ("selftests/bpf: Mask bpf_csum_diff() return value to 16 bits in test_verifier")
>
> because without the fix in patch 2 bpf_csum_diff() would return the
> following for this test:
>
> x86 : -29 : 0xffffffe3
> generic (arm64, riscv) : 65507 : 0x0000ffe3
You're right.
Thanks for explaining.
Helge
More information about the linux-riscv
mailing list