Update verifier to latest

[dthaler]

Signed-off-by: Dave Thaler [email protected]

Description

• Update verifier to latest and accept that some programs will fail verification until functionality is added to PREVAIL.
• Also fix a compiler warning in ebpf_program.c about passing a const pointer to a function that requires non-const.
• Update 3 samples with workaround for temporary verifier limitation (tracked by Widening is too aggressive vbpf/ebpf-verifier#441), by unrolling loops

Fixes #1451
Fixes #1756

Testing

Existing tests cover. The following samples fail to verify with the latest verifier and required updating with workarounds to remove for loops:

• bindmonitor.c
• bindmonitor_tailcall.c
• map.c

Documentation

No impact.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1991 (65934fa) into main (64e6812) will decrease coverage by 0.50%.
The diff coverage is 30.51%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1991      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   83.35%   82.86%   -0.50%     
==========================================
  Files         152      151       -1     
  Lines       26955    26057     -898     
==========================================
- Hits        22468    21591     -877     
+ Misses       4487     4466      -21     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
tests/sample/bindmonitor.c	31.41% <16.40%> (-68.59%)	⬇️
tests/sample/bindmonitor_tailcall.c	33.12% <16.40%> (-61.47%)	⬇️
libs/execution_context/ebpf_program.c	82.38% <100.00%> (ø)
tests/sample/map.c	97.46% <100.00%> (+3.71%)	⬆️
libs/platform/user/kernel_um.cpp	31.84% <0.00%> (-50.25%)	⬇️
libs/platform/user/nmr_um.cpp	43.07% <0.00%> (-7.70%)	⬇️
tests/bpf2c_tests/bpf_assembler.cpp	87.83% <0.00%> (-1.36%)	⬇️
tests/netebpfext_unit/netebpf_ext_helper.cpp	91.35% <0.00%> (-1.12%)	⬇️
libs/platform/ebpf_extension.c	88.49% <0.00%> (-0.89%)	⬇️
... and 18 more

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

[saxena-anurag]

Should we file an issue in our repository to track reverting the changes done in sample programs, and mark it blocking on PREVAIL repo issue?

[dthaler]

Should we file an issue in our repository to track reverting the changes done in sample programs, and mark it blocking on PREVAIL repo issue?

Good idea, filed #1993