[PATCH v4 3/7] test/bpf: add test for large shift

[Marat Khalili]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen at networkplumber.org>
> Sent: Wednesday 24 June 2026 00:23
> To: dev at dpdk.org
> Cc: Stephen Hemminger <stephen at networkplumber.org>; Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev at huawei.com>;
> Marat Khalili <marat.khalili at huawei.com>
> Subject: [PATCH v4 3/7] test/bpf: add test for large shift
> 
> The JIT compiler had issues with immediate values on shift instructions
> so add a new test to cover that case.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen at networkplumber.org>
> ---
>  app/test/test_bpf.c | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 66 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/app/test/test_bpf.c b/app/test/test_bpf.c
> index 232e9e2a98..b54e36910b 100644
> --- a/app/test/test_bpf.c
> +++ b/app/test/test_bpf.c
> @@ -2005,6 +2005,58 @@ test_div1_check(uint64_t rc, const void *arg)
>  	return cmp_res(__func__, 0, rc, dve.out, dvt->out, sizeof(dve.out));
>  }
> 
> +/*
> + * Shift by an immediate that doesn't fit in a signed byte: the C1 shift
> + * group takes a fixed 1-byte immediate, but imm_size() returns 4 for
> + * counts >= 128, so the x86 JIT emits 3 stray bytes and desyncs the
> + * instruction stream. The shift results are discarded (a count >= 64 is
> + * UB in the interpreter); the test returns a known constant, which the
> + * corrupted stream fails to produce.
> + */
> +static const struct ebpf_insn test_shift_big_imm_prog[] = {
> +	{
> +		.code = (BPF_ALU | EBPF_MOV | BPF_K),
> +		.dst_reg = EBPF_REG_2,
> +		.imm = 0x1,
> +	},
> +	{
> +		.code = (EBPF_ALU64 | BPF_LSH | BPF_K),
> +		.dst_reg = EBPF_REG_2,
> +		.imm = 137,
> +	},
> +	{
> +		.code = (EBPF_ALU64 | BPF_RSH | BPF_K),
> +		.dst_reg = EBPF_REG_2,
> +		.imm = 200,
> +	},
> +	{
> +		.code = (EBPF_ALU64 | EBPF_ARSH | BPF_K),
> +		.dst_reg = EBPF_REG_2,
> +		.imm = 255,
> +	},
> +	/* known result; a desynced stream won't reproduce it */
> +	{
> +		.code = (BPF_ALU | EBPF_MOV | BPF_K),
> +		.dst_reg = EBPF_REG_0,
> +		.imm = 0x55,
> +	},
> +	{
> +		.code = (BPF_JMP | EBPF_EXIT),
> +	},
> +};

// snip the rest

Thanks a lot for adding this test. Can we use the shift results though, instead
of discarding them, maybe as another test case? If the interpreter is unable to
reproduce them or triggers sanitizer it needs to be fixed as well. (Apologies
for this scope creep but I hope we get to the bottom of it eventually.)