Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 2/3] selftests/bpf: activate the OP_NE login in range_cond()

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 5:18 AM Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The edge range checking for the registers is supported by the verifier
> now, so we can activate the extended login in
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/reg_bounds.c/range_cond() to test
> such logic.
>
> Besides, I added some cases to the "crafted_cases" array for this logic.
> These cases are mainly used to test the edge of the src reg and dst reg.
>
> All reg bounds testings has passed in the SLOW_TESTS mode:
>
> $ export SLOW_TESTS=1 && ./test_progs -t reg_bounds -j
> Summary: 65/18959832 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
>
> Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> v3:
> - do some adjustment to the crafted cases that we added
> v2:
> - add some cases to the "crafted_cases"
> ---
>  .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/reg_bounds.c     | 20 +++++++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/reg_bounds.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/reg_bounds.c
> index 0c9abd279e18..c9dc9fe73211 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/reg_bounds.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/reg_bounds.c
> @@ -590,12 +590,7 @@ static void range_cond(enum num_t t, struct range x, struct range y,
>                 *newy = range(t, max_t(t, x.a, y.a), min_t(t, x.b, y.b));
>                 break;
>         case OP_NE:
> -               /* generic case, can't derive more information */
> -               *newx = range(t, x.a, x.b);
> -               *newy = range(t, y.a, y.b);
> -               break;
> -
> -               /* below extended logic is not supported by verifier just yet */
> +               /* below logic is supported by the verifier now */
>                 if (x.a == x.b && x.a == y.a) {
>                         /* X is a constant matching left side of Y */
>                         *newx = range(t, x.a, x.b);
> @@ -2101,6 +2096,19 @@ static struct subtest_case crafted_cases[] = {
>         {S32, S64, {(u32)(s32)S32_MIN, (u32)(s32)-255}, {(u32)(s32)-2, 0}},
>         {S32, S64, {0, 1}, {(u32)(s32)S32_MIN, (u32)(s32)S32_MIN}},
>         {S32, U32, {(u32)(s32)S32_MIN, (u32)(s32)S32_MIN}, {(u32)(s32)S32_MIN, (u32)(s32)S32_MIN}},
> +
> +       /* edge overlap testings for BPF_NE, skipped some cases that already
> +        * exist above.
> +        */
> +       {U64, U64, {0, U64_MAX}, {U64_MAX, U64_MAX}},
> +       {U64, U64, {0, U64_MAX}, {0, 0}},
> +       {S64, U64, {S64_MIN, 0}, {S64_MIN, S64_MIN}},
> +       {S64, U64, {S64_MIN, 0}, {0, 0}},
> +       {S64, U64, {S64_MIN, S64_MAX}, {S64_MAX, S64_MAX}},
> +       {U32, U32, {0, U32_MAX}, {0, 0}},
> +       {S32, U32, {(u32)(s32)S32_MIN, 0}, {0, 0}},
> +       {S32, U32, {(u32)(s32)S32_MIN, 0}, {(u32)(s32)S32_MIN, (u32)(s32)S32_MIN}},
> +       {S32, U32, {(u32)(s32)S32_MIN, S32_MAX}, {S32_MAX, S32_MAX}},

I think you're copying the style of the casts from few lines above,
but (s32)S32_MIN is unnecessary. S32_MIN includes the cast already.
Please remove and fix the above lines too.