The test case absent_mark_in_the_middle_state is equivalent of the
following C program:
1: r8 = bpf_get_prandom_u32();
2: r6 = -32;
3: bpf_iter_num_new(&fp[-8], 0, 10);
4: if (unlikely(bpf_get_prandom_u32()))
5: r6 = -31;
6: for (;;) {
7: if (!bpf_iter_num_next(&fp[-8]))
8: break;
9: if (unlikely(bpf_get_prandom_u32()))
10: *(u64 *)(fp + r6) = 7;
11: }
12: bpf_iter_num_destroy(&fp[-8]);
13: return 0;
W/o a fix that instructs verifier to ignore branches count for loop
entries verification proceeds as follows:
- 1-4, state is {r6=-32,fp-8=active};
- 6, checkpoint A is created with {r6=-32,fp-8=active};
- 7, checkpoint B is created with {r6=-32,fp-8=active},
push state {r6=-32,fp-8=active} from 7 to 9;
- 8,12,13, {r6=-32,fp-8=drained}, exit;
- pop state with {r6=-32,fp-8=active} from 7 to 9;
- 9, push state {r6=-32,fp-8=active} from 9 to 10;
- 6, checkpoint C is created with {r6=-32,fp-8=active};
- 7, checkpoint A is hit, no precision propagated for r6 to C;
- pop state {r6=-32,fp-8=active} from 9 to 10;
- 10, state is {r6=-31,fp-8=active}, r6 is marked as read and precise,
these marks are propagated to checkpoints A and B (but not C, as
it is not the parent of current state;
- 6, {r6=-31,fp-8=active} checkpoint C is hit, because r6 is not
marked precise for this checkpoint;
- the program is accepted, despite a possibility of unaligned u64
stack access at offset -31.
The test case absent_mark_in_the_middle_state2 is similar except the
following change:
r8 = bpf_get_prandom_u32();
r6 = -32;
bpf_iter_num_new(&fp[-8], 0, 10);
if (unlikely(bpf_get_prandom_u32())) {
r6 = -31;
+ jump_into_loop:
+ goto +0;
+ goto loop;
+ }
+ if (unlikely(bpf_get_prandom_u32()))
+ goto jump_into_loop;
+ loop:
for (;;) {
if (!bpf_iter_num_next(&fp[-8]))
break;
if (unlikely(bpf_get_prandom_u32()))
*(u64 *)(fp + r6) = 7;
}
bpf_iter_num_destroy(&fp[-8])
return 0
The goal is to check that read/precision marks are propagated to
checkpoint created at 'goto +0' that resides outside of the loop.
The test case absent_mark_in_the_middle_state3 is a bit different and
is equivalent to the C program below:
int absent_mark_in_the_middle_state3(void)
{
bpf_iter_num_new(&fp[-8], 0, 10)
loop1(-32, &fp[-8])
loop1_wrapper(&fp[-8])
bpf_iter_num_destroy(&fp[-8])
}
int loop1(num, iter)
{
while (bpf_iter_num_next(iter)) {
if (unlikely(bpf_get_prandom_u32()))
*(fp + num) = 7;
}
return 0
}
int loop1_wrapper(iter)
{
r6 = -32;
if (unlikely(bpf_get_prandom_u32()))
r6 = -31;
loop1(r6, iter);
return 0;
}
The unsafe state is reached in a similar manner, but the loop is
located inside a subprogram that is called from two locations in the
main subprogram. This detail is important for exercising
bpf_scc_visit->backedges memory management.
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250611200836.4135542-11-eddyz87@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
A few selftests and, more importantly, consequent changes to the
bpf_helpers.h file, use likely/unlikely macros, so define them here
and remove duplicate definitions from existing selftests.
Signed-off-by: Anton Protopopov <a.s.protopopov@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20250331203618.1973691-3-a.s.protopopov@gmail.com
A test case with ridiculously deep bpf_for() nesting and
a conditional update of a stack location.
Consider the innermost loop structure:
1: bpf_for(o, 0, 10)
2: if (unlikely(bpf_get_prandom_u32()))
3: buf[0] = 42;
4: <exit>
Assuming that verifier.c:clean_live_states() operates w/o change from
the previous patch (e.g. as on current master) verification would
proceed as follows:
- at (1) state {buf[0]=?,o=drained}:
- checkpoint
- push visit to (2) for later
- at (4) {buf[0]=?,o=drained}
- pop (2) {buf[0]=?,o=active}, push visit to (3) for later
- at (1) {buf[0]=?,o=active}
- checkpoint
- push visit to (2) for later
- at (4) {buf[0]=?,o=drained}
- pop (2) {buf[0]=?,o=active}, push visit to (3) for later
- at (1) {buf[0]=?,o=active}:
- checkpoint reached, checkpoint's branch count becomes 0
- checkpoint is processed by clean_live_states() and
becomes {o=active}
- pop (3) {buf[0]=42,o=active}
- at (1), {buf[0]=42,o=active}
- checkpoint
- push visit to (2) for later
- at (4) {buf[0]=42,o=drained}
- pop (2) {buf[0]=42,o=active}, push visit to (3) for later
- at (1) {buf[0]=42,o=active}, checkpoint reached
- pop (3) {buf[0]=42,o=active}
- at (1) {buf[0]=42,o=active}:
- checkpoint reached, checkpoint's branch count becomes 0
- checkpoint is processed by clean_live_states() and
becomes {o=active}
- ...
Note how clean_live_states() converted the checkpoint
{buf[0]=42,o=active} to {o=active} and it can no longer be matched
against {buf[0]=<any>,o=active}, because iterator based states
are compared using stacksafe(... RANGE_WITHIN), that requires
stack slots to have same types. At the same time there are
still states {buf[0]=42,o=active} pushed to DFS stack.
This behaviour becomes exacerbated with multiple nesting levels,
here are veristat results:
- nesting level 1: 69 insns
- nesting level 2: 258 insns
- nesting level 3: 900 insns
- nesting level 4: 4754 insns
- nesting level 5: 35944 insns
- nesting level 6: 312558 insns
- nesting level 7: 1M limit
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250215110411.3236773-5-eddyz87@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
A somewhat cumbersome test case sensitive to correct copying of
bpf_verifier_state->loop_entry fields in
verifier.c:copy_verifier_state().
W/o the fix from a previous commit the program is accepted as safe.
1: /* poison block */
2: if (random() != 24) { // assume false branch is placed first
3: i = iter_new();
4: while (iter_next(i));
5: iter_destroy(i);
6: return;
7: }
8:
9: /* dfs_depth block */
10: for (i = 10; i > 0; i--);
11:
12: /* main block */
13: i = iter_new(); // fp[-16]
14: b = -24; // r8
15: for (;;) {
16: if (iter_next(i))
17: break;
18: if (random() == 77) { // assume false branch is placed first
19: *(u64 *)(r10 + b) = 7; // this is not safe when b == -25
20: iter_destroy(i);
21: return;
22: }
23: if (random() == 42) { // assume false branch is placed first
24: b = -25;
25: }
26: }
27: iter_destroy(i);
The goal of this example is to:
(a) poison env->cur_state->loop_entry with a state S,
such that S->branches == 0;
(b) set state S as a loop_entry for all checkpoints in
/* main block */, thus forcing NOT_EXACT states comparisons;
(c) exploit incorrect loop_entry set for checkpoint at line 18
by first creating a checkpoint with b == -24 and then
pruning the state with b == -25 using that checkpoint.
The /* poison block */ is responsible for goal (a).
It forces verifier to first validate some unrelated iterator based
loop, which leads to an update_loop_entry() call in is_state_visited(),
which places checkpoint created at line 4 as env->cur_state->loop_entry.
Starting from line 8, the branch count for that checkpoint is 0.
The /* dfs_depth block */ is responsible for goal (b).
It abuses the fact that update_loop_entry(cur, hdr) only updates
cur->loop_entry when hdr->dfs_depth <= cur->dfs_depth.
After line 12 every state has dfs_depth bigger then dfs_depth of
poisoned env->cur_state->loop_entry. Thus the above condition is never
true for lines 12-27.
The /* main block */ is responsible for goal (c).
Verification proceeds as follows:
- checkpoint {b=-24,i=active} created at line 16;
- jump 18->23 is verified first, jump to 19 pushed to stack;
- jump 23->26 is verified first, jump to 24 pushed to stack;
- checkpoint {b=-24,i=active} created at line 15;
- current state is pruned by checkpoint created at line 16,
this sets branches count for checkpoint at line 15 to 0;
- jump to 24 is popped from stack;
- line 16 is reached in state {b=-25,i=active};
- this is pruned by a previous checkpoint {b=-24,i=active}:
- checkpoint's loop_entry is poisoned and has branch count of 0,
hence states are compared using NOT_EXACT rules;
- b is not marked precise yet.
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250215110411.3236773-3-eddyz87@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
This commit allows progs to elide a null check on statically known map
lookup keys. In other words, if the verifier can statically prove that
the lookup will be in-bounds, allow the prog to drop the null check.
This is useful for two reasons:
1. Large numbers of nullness checks (especially when they cannot fail)
unnecessarily pushes prog towards BPF_COMPLEXITY_LIMIT_JMP_SEQ.
2. It forms a tighter contract between programmer and verifier.
For (1), bpftrace is starting to make heavier use of percpu scratch
maps. As a result, for user scripts with large number of unrolled loops,
we are starting to hit jump complexity verification errors. These
percpu lookups cannot fail anyways, as we only use static key values.
Eliding nullness probably results in less work for verifier as well.
For (2), percpu scratch maps are often used as a larger stack, as the
currrent stack is limited to 512 bytes. In these situations, it is
desirable for the programmer to express: "this lookup should never fail,
and if it does, it means I messed up the code". By omitting the null
check, the programmer can "ask" the verifier to double check the logic.
Tests also have to be updated in sync with these changes, as the
verifier is more efficient with this change. Notable, iters.c tests had
to be changed to use a map type that still requires null checks, as it's
exercising verifier tracking logic w.r.t iterators.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Xu <dxu@dxuuu.xyz>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/68f3ea96ff3809a87e502a11a4bd30177fc5823e.1736886479.git.dxu@dxuuu.xyz
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Add selftests to cover argument type check for iterator kfuncs, and
cover all three kinds (new, next, destroy). Without the fix in the
previous patch, the selftest would not cause a verifier error.
Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241203000238.3602922-3-memxor@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
A selftest is added such that without the previous patch,
a crash can happen. With the previous patch, the test can
run successfully. The new test is written in a way which
mimics original crash case:
main_prog
static_prog_1
static_prog_2
where static_prog_1 has different paths to static_prog_2
and some path has stack allocated and some other path
does not. A stacksafe() checking in static_prog_2()
triggered the crash.
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240812214852.214037-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
ARRAY_SIZE is used on multiple places, move its definition in
bpf_misc.h header.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@oracle.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240626134719.3893748-1-jolsa@kernel.org
[Changes from V1:
- Avoid conflict by rebasing with latest master.]
Some BPF tests use loop unrolling compiler pragmas that are clang
specific and not supported by GCC. These pragmas, along with their
GCC equivalences are:
#pragma clang loop unroll_count(N)
#pragma GCC unroll N
#pragma clang loop unroll(full)
#pragma GCC unroll 65534
#pragma clang loop unroll(disable)
#pragma GCC unroll 1
#pragma unroll [aka #pragma clang loop unroll(enable)]
There is no GCC equivalence to this pragma. It enables unrolling on
loops that the compiler would not ordinarily unroll even with
-O2|-funroll-loops, but it is not equivalent to full unrolling
either.
This patch adds a new header progs/bpf_compiler.h that defines the
following macros, which correspond to each pair of compiler-specific
pragmas above:
__pragma_loop_unroll_count(N)
__pragma_loop_unroll_full
__pragma_loop_no_unroll
__pragma_loop_unroll
The selftests using loop unrolling pragmas are then changed to include
the header and use these macros in place of the explicit pragmas.
Tested in bpf-next master.
No regressions.
Signed-off-by: Jose E. Marchesi <jose.marchesi@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240208203612.29611-1-jose.marchesi@oracle.com
Some of the BPF selftests use the "p" constraint in inline assembly
snippets, for input operands for MOV (rN = rM) instructions.
This is mainly done via the __imm_ptr macro defined in
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_misc.h:
#define __imm_ptr(name) [name]"p"(&name)
Example:
int consume_first_item_only(void *ctx)
{
struct bpf_iter_num iter;
asm volatile (
/* create iterator */
"r1 = %[iter];"
[...]
:
: __imm_ptr(iter)
: CLOBBERS);
[...]
}
The "p" constraint is a tricky one. It is documented in the GCC manual
section "Simple Constraints":
An operand that is a valid memory address is allowed. This is for
``load address'' and ``push address'' instructions.
p in the constraint must be accompanied by address_operand as the
predicate in the match_operand. This predicate interprets the mode
specified in the match_operand as the mode of the memory reference for
which the address would be valid.
There are two problems:
1. It is questionable whether that constraint was ever intended to be
used in inline assembly templates, because its behavior really
depends on compiler internals. A "memory address" is not the same
than a "memory operand" or a "memory reference" (constraint "m"), and
in fact its usage in the template above results in an error in both
x86_64-linux-gnu and bpf-unkonwn-none:
foo.c: In function ‘bar’:
foo.c:6:3: error: invalid 'asm': invalid expression as operand
6 | asm volatile ("r1 = %[jorl]" : : [jorl]"p"(&jorl));
| ^~~
I would assume the same happens with aarch64, riscv, and most/all
other targets in GCC, that do not accept operands of the form A + B
that are not wrapped either in a const or in a memory reference.
To avoid that error, the usage of the "p" constraint in internal GCC
instruction templates is supposed to be complemented by the 'a'
modifier, like in:
asm volatile ("r1 = %a[jorl]" : : [jorl]"p"(&jorl));
Internally documented (in GCC's final.cc) as:
%aN means expect operand N to be a memory address
(not a memory reference!) and print a reference
to that address.
That works because when the modifier 'a' is found, GCC prints an
"operand address", which is not the same than an "operand".
But...
2. Even if we used the internal 'a' modifier (we shouldn't) the 'rN =
rM' instruction really requires a register argument. In cases
involving automatics, like in the examples above, we easily end with:
bar:
#APP
r1 = r10-4
#NO_APP
In other cases we could conceibly also end with a 64-bit label that
may overflow the 32-bit immediate operand of `rN = imm32'
instructions:
r1 = foo
All of which is clearly wrong.
clang happens to do "the right thing" in the current usage of __imm_ptr
in the BPF tests, because even with -O2 it seems to "reload" the
fp-relative address of the automatic to a register like in:
bar:
r1 = r10
r1 += -4
#APP
r1 = r1
#NO_APP
Which is what GCC would generate with -O0. Whether this is by chance
or by design, the compiler shouln't be expected to do that reload
driven by the "p" constraint.
This patch changes the usage of the "p" constraint in the BPF
selftests macros to use the "r" constraint instead. If a register is
what is required, we should let the compiler know.
Previous discussion in bpf@vger:
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/87h6p5ebpb.fsf@oracle.com/T/#ef0df83d6975c34dff20bf0dd52e078f5b8ca2767
Tested in bpf-next master.
No regressions.
Signed-off-by: Jose E. Marchesi <jose.marchesi@oracle.com>
Cc: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Cc: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240123181309.19853-1-jose.marchesi@oracle.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
GCC's -Wall includes -Wsign-compare while clang does not.
Since BPF programs are built with clang we need to add this flag explicitly
to catch problematic comparisons like:
int i = -1;
unsigned int j = 1;
if (i < j) // this is false.
long i = -1;
unsigned int j = 1;
if (i < j) // this is true.
C standard for reference:
- If either operand is unsigned long the other shall be converted to unsigned long.
- Otherwise, if one operand is a long int and the other unsigned int, then if a
long int can represent all the values of an unsigned int, the unsigned int
shall be converted to a long int; otherwise both operands shall be converted to
unsigned long int.
- Otherwise, if either operand is long, the other shall be converted to long.
- Otherwise, if either operand is unsigned, the other shall be converted to unsigned.
Unfortunately clang's -Wsign-compare is very noisy.
It complains about (s32)a == (u32)b which is safe and doen't have surprising behavior.
This patch fixes some of the issues. It needs a follow up to fix the rest.
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20231226191148.48536-2-alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com
Privileged programs are supposed to be able to read uninitialized stack
memory (ever since 6715df8d5) but, before this patch, these accesses
were permitted inconsistently. In particular, accesses were permitted
above state->allocated_stack, but not below it. In other words, if the
stack was already "large enough", the access was permitted, but
otherwise the access was rejected instead of being allowed to "grow the
stack". This undesired rejection was happening in two places:
- in check_stack_slot_within_bounds()
- in check_stack_range_initialized()
This patch arranges for these accesses to be permitted. A bunch of tests
that were relying on the old rejection had to change; all of them were
changed to add also run unprivileged, in which case the old behavior
persists. One tests couldn't be updated - global_func16 - because it
can't run unprivileged for other reasons.
This patch also fixes the tracking of the stack size for variable-offset
reads. This second fix is bundled in the same commit as the first one
because they're inter-related. Before this patch, writes to the stack
using registers containing a variable offset (as opposed to registers
with fixed, known values) were not properly contributing to the
function's needed stack size. As a result, it was possible for a program
to verify, but then to attempt to read out-of-bounds data at runtime
because a too small stack had been allocated for it.
Each function tracks the size of the stack it needs in
bpf_subprog_info.stack_depth, which is maintained by
update_stack_depth(). For regular memory accesses, check_mem_access()
was calling update_state_depth() but it was passing in only the fixed
part of the offset register, ignoring the variable offset. This was
incorrect; the minimum possible value of that register should be used
instead.
This tracking is now fixed by centralizing the tracking of stack size in
grow_stack_state(), and by lifting the calls to grow_stack_state() to
check_stack_access_within_bounds() as suggested by Andrii. The code is
now simpler and more convincingly tracks the correct maximum stack size.
check_stack_range_initialized() can now rely on enough stack having been
allocated for the access; this helps with the fix for the first issue.
A few tests were changed to also check the stack depth computation. The
one that fails without this patch is verifier_var_off:stack_write_priv_vs_unpriv.
Fixes: 01f810ace9 ("bpf: Allow variable-offset stack access")
Reported-by: Hao Sun <sunhao.th@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrei Matei <andreimatei1@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20231208032519.260451-3-andreimatei1@gmail.com
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CABWLsev9g8UP_c3a=1qbuZUi20tGoUXoU07FPf-5FLvhOKOY+Q@mail.gmail.com/
Add a simple verifier test that requires deriving reg bounds for one
register from another register that's not a constant. This is
a realistic example of iterating elements of an array with fixed maximum
number of elements, but smaller actual number of elements.
This small example was an original motivation for doing this whole patch
set in the first place, yes.
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231112010609.848406-14-andrii@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
A convoluted test case for iterators convergence logic that
demonstrates that states with branch count equal to 0 might still be
a part of not completely explored loop.
E.g. consider the following state diagram:
initial Here state 'succ' was processed first,
| it was eventually tracked to produce a
V state identical to 'hdr'.
.---------> hdr All branches from 'succ' had been explored
| | and thus 'succ' has its .branches == 0.
| V
| .------... Suppose states 'cur' and 'succ' correspond
| | | to the same instruction + callsites.
| V V In such case it is necessary to check
| ... ... whether 'succ' and 'cur' are identical.
| | | If 'succ' and 'cur' are a part of the same loop
| V V they have to be compared exactly.
| succ <- cur
| |
| V
| ...
| |
'----'
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231024000917.12153-7-eddyz87@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
These test cases try to hide read and precision marks from loop
convergence logic: marks would only be assigned on subsequent loop
iterations or after exploring states pushed to env->head stack first.
Without verifier fix to use exact states comparison logic for
iterators convergence these tests (except 'triple_continue') would be
errorneously marked as safe.
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231024000917.12153-5-eddyz87@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Now that precision propagation is supported fully in the presence of
subprogs, there is no need to work around iter test. Revert original
workaround.
This reverts be7dbd275d ("selftests/bpf: avoid mark_all_scalars_precise() trigger in one of iter tests").
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230505043317.3629845-11-andrii@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
iter_pass_iter_ptr_to_subprog subtest is relying on actual array size
being passed as subprog parameter. This combined with recent fixes to
precision tracking in conditional jumps ([0]) is now causing verifier to
backtrack all the way to the point where sum() and fill() subprogs are
called, at which point precision backtrack bails out and forces all the
states to have precise SCALAR registers. This in turn causes each
possible value of i within fill() and sum() subprogs to cause
a different non-equivalent state, preventing iterator code to converge.
For now, change the test to assume fixed size of passed in array. Once
BPF verifier supports precision tracking across subprogram calls, these
changes will be reverted as unnecessary.
[0] 71b547f561 ("bpf: Fix incorrect verifier pruning due to missing register precision taints")
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230424235128.1941726-1-andrii@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Once we enable -Wall for BPF sources, compiler will complain about lots
of unused variables, variables that are set but never read, etc.
Fix all these issues first before enabling -Wall in Makefile.
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230309054015.4068562-4-andrii@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Add various tests for open-coded iterators. Some of them excercise
various possible coding patterns in C, some go down to low-level
assembly for more control over various conditions, especially invalid
ones.
We also make use of bpf_for(), bpf_for_each(), bpf_repeat() macros in
some of these tests.
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230308184121.1165081-7-andrii@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
