[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YFouKGT7oS1T/oMS@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 15:06:32 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To: Thomas Richter <tmricht@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
svens@...ux.ibm.com, gor@...ux.ibm.com, sumanthk@...ux.ibm.com,
hca@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf test: Fix perf test 42
Em Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 01:53:39PM +0100, Thomas Richter escreveu:
> For some time now the perf test 42: BPF filter returns an error
> on bpf relocation subtest, at least on x86 and s390. This is caused by
>
> commit d859900c4c56 ("bpf, libbpf: support global data/bss/rodata sections")
>
> which introduces support for global variables in eBPF programs. At least
> for global variables defined static.
>
> Perf test 42 checks that the eBPF relocation fails when the eBPF program
> contains a global variable. It returns OK when the eBPF program
> could not be loaded and FAILED otherwise.
>
> With above commit the test logic for the eBPF relocation need to change:
> 1. The function prepare_bpf() now always succeeds, the eBPF program
> compiled without errors and returns a valid object pointer instead of
> NULL.
> 2. There is no kprobe named sys_write, it now named ksys_write.
> 3. The function do_test() now returns TEST_FAIL because function
> parse_events_load_bpf_obj() can not execute the eBPF program. The
> eBPF verifier complains on an invalid map pointer:
> libbpf: load bpf program failed: Permission denied
> libbpf: -- BEGIN DUMP LOG ---
> libbpf:
> 0: (b7) r1 = 0
> 1: (63) *(u32 *)(r10 -4) = r1
> last_idx 1 first_idx 0
> regs=2 stack=0 before 0: (b7) r1 = 0
> 2: (63) *(u32 *)(r10 -8) = r1
> 3: (bf) r2 = r10
> 4: (07) r2 += -4
> 5: (bf) r3 = r10
> 6: (07) r3 += -8
> 7: (18) r1 = 0x380006ce000
> 9: (b7) r4 = 0
> 10: (85) call bpf_map_update_elem#2
> R1 type=map_value expected=map_ptr
>
> Fix this by added logic to handle the kernel verifier return code:
> 1. Add function myksys_write() to cope with successful compile.
> 2. Use kprobe ksys_write
> 3. Handle eBPF verifier error.
>
> Output after:
> 42: BPF filter :
> 42.1: Basic BPF filtering : Ok
> 42.2: BPF pinning : Ok
> 42.3: BPF prologue generation : Ok
> 42.4: BPF relocation checker : Failed
> #
>
> Output after:
> # ./perf test -F 42
> 42: BPF filter :
> 42.1: Basic BPF filtering : Ok
> 42.2: BPF pinning : Ok
> 42.3: BPF prologue generation : Ok
> 42.4: BPF relocation checker : Ok
> #
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Richter <tmricht@...ux.ibm.com>
> ---
> tools/perf/tests/bpf-script-test-relocation.c | 4 ++--
> tools/perf/tests/bpf.c | 11 +++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/bpf-script-test-relocation.c b/tools/perf/tests/bpf-script-test-relocation.c
> index 74006e4b2d24..f8f8176ad4d1 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/tests/bpf-script-test-relocation.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/tests/bpf-script-test-relocation.c
> @@ -34,8 +34,8 @@ struct bpf_map_def SEC("maps") my_table = {
>
> int this_is_a_global_val;
>
> -SEC("func=sys_write")
> -int bpf_func__sys_write(void *ctx)
> +SEC("func=ksys_write")
> +int bpf_func__ksys_write(void *ctx)
> {
> int key = 0;
> int value = 0;
> diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c b/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c
> index f57e075b0ed2..d60ef9472d3d 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c
> @@ -59,6 +59,11 @@ static int llseek_loop(void)
>
> #endif
>
> +static int myksys_write(void)
> +{
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> static struct {
> enum test_llvm__testcase prog_id;
> const char *desc;
> @@ -105,6 +110,7 @@ static struct {
> .name = "[bpf_relocation_test]",
> .msg_compile_fail = "fix 'perf test LLVM' first",
> .msg_load_fail = "libbpf error when dealing with relocation",
> + .target_func = &myksys_write,
> },
> };
>
> @@ -258,6 +264,11 @@ static int __test__bpf(int idx)
> ret = do_test(obj,
> bpf_testcase_table[idx].target_func,
> bpf_testcase_table[idx].expect_result);
> + if (bpf_testcase_table[idx].prog_id == LLVM_TESTCASE_BPF_RELOCATION
> + && ret == TEST_FAIL) {
> + ret = TEST_OK;
> + goto out;
> + }
At this point, if it doesn't matter if it fails or succeeds, just drop
this test case?
- Arnaldo
> if (ret != TEST_OK)
> goto out;
> if (bpf_testcase_table[idx].pin) {
> --
> 2.30.2
>
--
- Arnaldo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists