linux-kernel - Re: [bpf-next v3 01/12] selftests/bpf: Print a message when tester could not run a program

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]

Message-ID: <CAEf4BzYDOyU52wdCinm9cxxvNijpTJgQbCg9UxcO1QKk6vWhNA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 10 Jul 2019 16:44:55 -0700
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To:     Krzesimir Nowak <krzesimir@...volk.io>
Cc:     open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alban Crequy <alban@...volk.io>,
        Iago López Galeiras <iago@...volk.io>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        xdp-newbies@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [bpf-next v3 01/12] selftests/bpf: Print a message when tester
 could not run a program

On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 3:42 PM Krzesimir Nowak <krzesimir@...volk.io> wrote:
>
> This prints a message when the error is about program type being not
> supported by the test runner or because of permissions problem. This
> is to see if the program we expected to run was actually executed.
>
> The messages are open-coded because strerror(ENOTSUPP) returns
> "Unknown error 524".
>
> Changes since v2:
> - Also print "FAIL" on an unexpected bpf_prog_test_run error, so there
>   is a corresponding "FAIL" message for each failed test.
>
> Signed-off-by: Krzesimir Nowak <krzesimir@...volk.io>
> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 17 +++++++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> index c5514daf8865..b8d065623ead 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> @@ -831,11 +831,20 @@ static int do_prog_test_run(int fd_prog, bool unpriv, uint32_t expected_val,
>                                 tmp, &size_tmp, &retval, NULL);
>         if (unpriv)
>                 set_admin(false);
> -       if (err && errno != 524/*ENOTSUPP*/ && errno != EPERM) {
> -               printf("Unexpected bpf_prog_test_run error ");
> -               return err;
> +       if (err) {
> +               switch (errno) {
> +               case 524/*ENOTSUPP*/:
> +                       printf("Did not run the program (not supported) ");
> +                       return 0;
> +               case EPERM:
> +                       printf("Did not run the program (no permission) ");

Let's add "SKIP: " prefix to these?

> +                       return 0;
> +               default:
> +                       printf("FAIL: Unexpected bpf_prog_test_run error (%s) ", strerror(saved_errno));
> +                       return err;
> +               }
>         }
> -       if (!err && retval != expected_val &&
> +       if (retval != expected_val &&
>             expected_val != POINTER_VALUE) {
>                 printf("FAIL retval %d != %d ", retval, expected_val);
>                 return 1;
> --
> 2.20.1
>