linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 5/5] selftests/bpf: Add test for "bpftool feature" command

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: <dbdb9673-dbb4-45e6-918f-9d4cd69ccfef@opensuse.org>
Date:   Tue, 25 Feb 2020 14:25:31 +0100
From:   Michal Rostecki <mrostecki@...nsuse.org>
To:     Quentin Monnet <quentin@...valent.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
        Quentin Monnet <quentin.monnet@...ronome.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 5/5] selftests/bpf: Add test for "bpftool
 feature" command

On 2/21/20 12:28 PM, Quentin Monnet wrote:>> +    def
test_feature_macros(self):
>> +        expected_patterns = [
>> +            b"/\*\*\* System call availability \*\*\*/",
>> +            b"#define HAVE_BPF_SYSCALL",
>> +            b"/\*\*\* eBPF program types \*\*\*/",
>> +            b"#define HAVE.*PROG_TYPE",
>> +            b"/\*\*\* eBPF map types \*\*\*/",
>> +            b"#define HAVE.*MAP_TYPE",
>> +            b"/\*\*\* eBPF helper functions \*\*\*/",
>> +            b"#define HAVE.*HELPER",
>> +            b"/\*\*\* eBPF misc features \*\*\*/",
>> +        ]
>> +
>> +        res = bpftool(["feature", "probe", "macros"])
>> +        for pattern in expected_patterns:
>> +            self.assertRegex(res, pattern)
> 
> Could we have (or did I miss it?) a test that compares the output of
> probes _with_ "full" and _without_ it, to make sure that the only lines
> that differ are about "bpf_trace_prink" or "bpf_probe_write_user"? Could
> help determine if we filter out too many elements by mistake.
> 
> Thanks,
> Quentin

Good idea, I will add that test in v3.