| 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 PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2021 18:11:50 -0800
From: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
To: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<bpf@...r.kernel.org>
CC: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 2/2] selftests: bpf: Add a new test for bare
tracepoints
On 1/16/21 10:21 AM, Qais Yousef wrote:
> Reuse module_attach infrastructure to add a new bare tracepoint to check
> we can attach to it as a raw tracepoint.
>
> Signed-off-by: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
> ---
> .../bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod-events.h | 6 +++++
> .../selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c | 21 ++++++++++++++-
> .../selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h | 6 +++++
> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/module_attach.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++
> .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_module_attach.c | 10 +++++++
> 5 files changed, 69 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod-events.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod-events.h
> index b83ea448bc79..89c6d58e5dd6 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod-events.h
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod-events.h
> @@ -28,6 +28,12 @@ TRACE_EVENT(bpf_testmod_test_read,
> __entry->pid, __entry->comm, __entry->off, __entry->len)
> );
>
> +/* A bare tracepoint with no event associated with it */
> +DECLARE_TRACE(bpf_testmod_test_write_bare,
> + TP_PROTO(struct task_struct *task, struct bpf_testmod_test_write_ctx *ctx),
> + TP_ARGS(task, ctx)
> +);
> +
> #endif /* _BPF_TESTMOD_EVENTS_H */
>
> #undef TRACE_INCLUDE_PATH
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
> index 2df19d73ca49..e900adad2276 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
> @@ -28,9 +28,28 @@ bpf_testmod_test_read(struct file *file, struct kobject *kobj,
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(bpf_testmod_test_read);
> ALLOW_ERROR_INJECTION(bpf_testmod_test_read, ERRNO);
>
> +noinline ssize_t
> +bpf_testmod_test_write(struct file *file, struct kobject *kobj,
> + struct bin_attribute *bin_attr,
> + char *buf, loff_t off, size_t len)
> +{
> + struct bpf_testmod_test_write_ctx ctx = {
> + .buf = buf,
> + .off = off,
> + .len = len,
> + };
> +
> + trace_bpf_testmod_test_write_bare(current, &ctx);
> +
> + return -EIO; /* always fail */
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(bpf_testmod_test_write);
> +ALLOW_ERROR_INJECTION(bpf_testmod_test_write, ERRNO);
> +
> static struct bin_attribute bin_attr_bpf_testmod_file __ro_after_init = {
Do we need to remove __ro_after_init?
> - .attr = { .name = "bpf_testmod", .mode = 0444, },
> + .attr = { .name = "bpf_testmod", .mode = 0666, },
> .read = bpf_testmod_test_read,
> + .write = bpf_testmod_test_write,
> };
>
> static int bpf_testmod_init(void)
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h
> index b81adfedb4f6..b3892dc40111 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h
> @@ -11,4 +11,10 @@ struct bpf_testmod_test_read_ctx {
> size_t len;
> };
>
> +struct bpf_testmod_test_write_ctx {
> + char *buf;
> + loff_t off;
> + size_t len;
> +};
> +
> #endif /* _BPF_TESTMOD_H */
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/module_attach.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/module_attach.c
> index 50796b651f72..e4605c0b5af1 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/module_attach.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/module_attach.c
> @@ -21,9 +21,34 @@ static int trigger_module_test_read(int read_sz)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static int trigger_module_test_write(int write_sz)
> +{
> + int fd, err;
Init err = 0?
> + char *buf = malloc(write_sz);
> +
> + if (!buf)
> + return -ENOMEM;
Looks like we already non-negative value, so return ENOMEM?
> +
> + memset(buf, 'a', write_sz);
> + buf[write_sz-1] = '\0';
> +
> + fd = open("/sys/kernel/bpf_testmod", O_WRONLY);
> + err = -errno;
> + if (CHECK(fd < 0, "testmod_file_open", "failed: %d\n", err))
> + goto out;
Change the above to
fd = open("/sys/kernel/bpf_testmod", O_WRONLY);
if (CHECK(fd < 0, "testmod_file_open", "failed: %d\n", errno)) {
err = -errno;
goto out;
}
> +
> + write(fd, buf, write_sz);
> + close(fd);
> +out:
> + free(buf);
> +
No need for extra line here.
> + return 0;
return err.
> +}
> +
> void test_module_attach(void)
> {
> const int READ_SZ = 456;
> + const int WRITE_SZ = 457;
> struct test_module_attach* skel;
> struct test_module_attach__bss *bss;
> int err;
> @@ -48,8 +73,10 @@ void test_module_attach(void)
>
> /* trigger tracepoint */
> ASSERT_OK(trigger_module_test_read(READ_SZ), "trigger_read");
> + ASSERT_OK(trigger_module_test_write(WRITE_SZ), "trigger_write");
>
> ASSERT_EQ(bss->raw_tp_read_sz, READ_SZ, "raw_tp");
> + ASSERT_EQ(bss->raw_tp_bare_write_sz, WRITE_SZ, "raw_tp_bare");
> ASSERT_EQ(bss->tp_btf_read_sz, READ_SZ, "tp_btf");
> ASSERT_EQ(bss->fentry_read_sz, READ_SZ, "fentry");
> ASSERT_EQ(bss->fentry_manual_read_sz, READ_SZ, "fentry_manual");
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_module_attach.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_module_attach.c
> index efd1e287ac17..bd37ceec5587 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_module_attach.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_module_attach.c
> @@ -17,6 +17,16 @@ int BPF_PROG(handle_raw_tp,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +__u32 raw_tp_bare_write_sz = 0;
> +
> +SEC("raw_tp/bpf_testmod_test_write_bare")
> +int BPF_PROG(handle_raw_tp_bare,
> + struct task_struct *task, struct bpf_testmod_test_write_ctx *write_ctx)
> +{
> + raw_tp_bare_write_sz = BPF_CORE_READ(write_ctx, len);
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> __u32 tp_btf_read_sz = 0;
>
> SEC("tp_btf/bpf_testmod_test_read")
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists