netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 5/8] tools/bpf: add test_btf unit tests for kind

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 16 Dec 2018 04:10:02 +0000
From:   Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
To:     Martin Lau <kafai@...com>
CC:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 5/8] tools/bpf: add test_btf unit tests for
 kind_flag



On 12/15/18 1:03 PM, Martin Lau wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 03:34:30PM -0800, Yonghong Song wrote:
>> This patch added unit tests for different types handling
>> type->info.kind_flag. The following new tests are added:
>>    $ test_btf
>>    ...
>>    BTF raw test[82] (invalid int kind_flag): OK
>>    BTF raw test[83] (invalid ptr kind_flag): OK
>>    BTF raw test[84] (invalid array kind_flag): OK
>>    BTF raw test[85] (invalid enum kind_flag): OK
>>    BTF raw test[86] (valid fwd kind_flag): OK
>>    BTF raw test[87] (invalid typedef kind_flag): OK
>>    BTF raw test[88] (invalid volatile kind_flag): OK
>>    BTF raw test[89] (invalid const kind_flag): OK
>>    BTF raw test[90] (invalid restrict kind_flag): OK
>>    BTF raw test[91] (invalid func kind_flag): OK
>>    BTF raw test[92] (invalid func_proto kind_flag): OK
>>    BTF raw test[93] (valid struct kind_flag, bitfield_size = 0): OK
>>    BTF raw test[94] (valid struct kind_flag, int member, bitfield_size != 0): OK
>>    BTF raw test[95] (valid union kind_flag, int member, bitfield_size != 0): OK
>>    BTF raw test[96] (valid struct kind_flag, enum member, bitfield_size != 0): OK
>>    BTF raw test[97] (valid union kind_flag, enum member, bitfield_size != 0): OK
>>    BTF raw test[98] (valid struct kind_flag, typedef member, bitfield_size != 0): OK
>>    BTF raw test[99] (valid union kind_flag, typedef member, bitfield_size != 0): OK
>>    BTF raw test[100] (invalid struct type, bitfield_size greater than struct size): OK
>>    BTF raw test[101] (invalid struct type, kind_flag bitfield base_type int not regular): OK
>>    BTF raw test[102] (invalid struct type, kind_flag base_type int not regular): OK
>>    BTF raw test[103] (invalid union type, bitfield_size greater than struct size): OK
> Would it be useful to add some
> "struct kind_flag, (int|enum) member, bitfield_size == 0, wrong byte alignment"
> tests to catch the "!nr_bits && BITS_PER_BYTE_MASKED(struct_bits_off)"
> in patch 2.  The extra tests could be a follow up though.
> 
> Or the above tests have covered that already?

No. They are not covered. I will add tests for these two cases.

> 
>>    ...
>>    PASS:122 SKIP:0 FAIL:0
>>
>> The second parameter name of macro
>>    BTF_INFO_ENC(kind, root, vlen)
>> in selftests test_btf.c is also renamed from "root" to "kind_flag".
>> Note that before this patch "root" is not used and always 0.
> For the tests:
> 
> Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>
>