| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAEf4BzazkFMw3LAs3M2hxSLWWZJ7ywykwte=0WDhC1zgMYw-3A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2020 18:43:55 -0700
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To: Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
Cc: open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>,
john fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
Daniel Xu <dlxu@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 3/5] selftests/bpf: add selftest for BPF_PROG_TYPE_USER
On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 1:50 AM Song Liu <songliubraving@...com> wrote:
>
> This test checks the correctness of BPF_PROG_TYPE_USER program, including:
> running on the right cpu, passing in correct args, returning retval, and
> being able to call bpf_get_stack|stackid.
>
> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
> ---
> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/user_prog.c | 52 +++++++++++++++++
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/user_prog.c | 56 +++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 108 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/user_prog.c
> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/user_prog.c
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/user_prog.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/user_prog.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000000..416707b3bff01
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/user_prog.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +/* Copyright (c) 2020 Facebook */
> +#include <test_progs.h>
> +#include "user_prog.skel.h"
> +
> +static int duration;
> +
> +void test_user_prog(void)
> +{
> + struct bpf_user_prog_args args = {{0, 1, 2, 3, 4}};
> + struct bpf_prog_test_run_attr attr = {};
> + struct user_prog *skel;
> + int i, numcpu, ret;
> +
> + skel = user_prog__open_and_load();
> +
> + if (CHECK(!skel, "user_prog__open_and_load",
> + "skeleton open_and_laod failed\n"))
> + return;
> +
> + numcpu = libbpf_num_possible_cpus();
nit: possible doesn't mean online right now, so it will fail on
offline or non-present CPUs
> +
> + attr.prog_fd = bpf_program__fd(skel->progs.user_func);
> + attr.data_size_in = sizeof(args);
> + attr.data_in = &args;
> +
> + /* start from -1, so we test cpu_plus == 0 */
> + for (i = -1; i < numcpu; i++) {
> + args.args[0] = i + 1;
> + attr.cpu_plus = i + 1;
> + ret = bpf_prog_test_run_xattr(&attr);
> + CHECK(ret, "bpf_prog_test_run_xattr", "returns error\n");
> +
> + /* skip two tests for i == -1 */
> + if (i == -1)
> + continue;
> + CHECK(attr.retval != i + 2, "bpf_prog_test_run_xattr",
> + "doesn't get expected retval\n");
> + CHECK(skel->data->sum != 11 + i, "user_prog_args_test",
> + "sum of args doesn't match\n");
> + }
> +
> + CHECK(skel->data->cpu_match == 0, "cpu_match_test", "failed\n");
> + CHECK(skel->bss->get_stack_success != numcpu + 1, "test_bpf_get_stack",
> + "failed on %d cores\n", numcpu - skel->bss->get_stack_success);
> + CHECK(skel->bss->get_stackid_success != numcpu + 1,
> + "test_bpf_get_stackid",
> + "failed on %d cores\n",
> + numcpu + 1 - skel->bss->get_stackid_success);
> +
> + user_prog__destroy(skel);
> +}
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/user_prog.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/user_prog.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000000..cf320e97f107a
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/user_prog.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +/* Copyright (c) 2020 Facebook */
> +#include "vmlinux.h"
> +#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
> +#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
> +
> +char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
> +
> +#ifndef PERF_MAX_STACK_DEPTH
> +#define PERF_MAX_STACK_DEPTH 127
> +#endif
> +
> +typedef __u64 stack_trace_t[PERF_MAX_STACK_DEPTH];
> +
> +struct {
> + __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_STACK_TRACE);
> + __uint(max_entries, 16384);
> + __uint(key_size, sizeof(__u32));
> + __uint(value_size, sizeof(stack_trace_t));
> +} stackmap SEC(".maps");
> +
> +volatile int cpu_match = 1;
> +volatile __u64 sum = 1;
> +volatile int get_stack_success = 0;
> +volatile int get_stackid_success = 0;
> +volatile __u64 stacktrace[PERF_MAX_STACK_DEPTH];
nit: no need for volatile for non-static variables
> +
> +SEC("user")
> +int user_func(struct bpf_user_prog_ctx *ctx)
If you put args in bpf_user_prog_ctx as a first field, you should be
able to re-use the BPF_PROG macro to access those arguments in a more
user-friendly way.
> +{
> + int cpu = bpf_get_smp_processor_id();
> + __u32 key = cpu;
> + long stackid, err;
> +
> + /* check the program runs on the right cpu */
> + if (ctx->args[0] && ctx->args[0] != cpu + 1)
> + cpu_match = 0;
> +
> + /* check the sum of arguments are correct */
> + sum = ctx->args[0] + ctx->args[1] + ctx->args[2] +
> + ctx->args[3] + ctx->args[4];
> +
> + /* check bpf_get_stackid works */
> + stackid = bpf_get_stackid(ctx, &stackmap, 0);
> + if (stackid >= 0)
> + get_stackid_success++;
> +
> + /* check bpf_get_stack works */
> + err = bpf_get_stack(ctx, (void *)stacktrace,
> + PERF_MAX_STACK_DEPTH * sizeof(__u64),
> + BPF_F_USER_STACK);
> + if (err >= 0)
> + get_stack_success++;
> +
> + return cpu + 2;
> +}
> --
> 2.24.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists