| 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: <CAEf4BzayhbiWLdRed+isKQk+o9z_GHH0dQECfud8jZAYXQrz6A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2022 18:48:23 -0800
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To: "zhudi (E)" <zhudi2@...wei.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Martin Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
john fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Luzhihao (luzhihao, Euler)" <luzhihao@...wei.com>,
"Chenxiang (EulerOS)" <rose.chen@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 2/2] selftests: bpf: test BPF_PROG_QUERY for
progs attached to sockmap
On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 6:34 PM zhudi (E) <zhudi2@...wei.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 1:01 AM Di Zhu <zhudi2@...wei.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Add test for querying progs attached to sockmap. we use an existing
> > > libbpf query interface to query prog cnt before and after progs
> > > attaching to sockmap and check whether the queried prog id is right.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Di Zhu <zhudi2@...wei.com>
> > > Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
> > > ---
> > > .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sockmap_basic.c | 70 +++++++++++++++++++
> > > .../bpf/progs/test_sockmap_progs_query.c | 24 +++++++
> > > 2 files changed, 94 insertions(+)
> > > create mode 100644
> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_sockmap_progs_query.c
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sockmap_basic.c
> > b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sockmap_basic.c
> > > index 85db0f4cdd95..06923ea44bad 100644
> > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sockmap_basic.c
> > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sockmap_basic.c
> > > @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
> > > #include "test_sockmap_update.skel.h"
> > > #include "test_sockmap_invalid_update.skel.h"
> > > #include "test_sockmap_skb_verdict_attach.skel.h"
> > > +#include "test_sockmap_progs_query.skel.h"
> > > #include "bpf_iter_sockmap.skel.h"
> > >
> > > #define TCP_REPAIR 19 /* TCP sock is under repair
> > right now */
> > > @@ -315,6 +316,69 @@ static void test_sockmap_skb_verdict_attach(enum
> > bpf_attach_type first,
> > > test_sockmap_skb_verdict_attach__destroy(skel);
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static __u32 query_prog_id(int prog_fd)
> > > +{
> > > + struct bpf_prog_info info = {};
> > > + __u32 info_len = sizeof(info);
> > > + int err;
> > > +
> > > + err = bpf_obj_get_info_by_fd(prog_fd, &info, &info_len);
> > > + if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "bpf_obj_get_info_by_fd") ||
> > > + !ASSERT_EQ(info_len, sizeof(info), "bpf_obj_get_info_by_fd"))
> > > + return 0;
> > > +
> > > + return info.id;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static void test_sockmap_progs_query(enum bpf_attach_type attach_type)
> > > +{
> > > + struct test_sockmap_progs_query *skel;
> > > + int err, map_fd, verdict_fd, duration = 0;
> > > + __u32 attach_flags = 0;
> > > + __u32 prog_ids[3] = {};
> > > + __u32 prog_cnt = 3;
> > > +
> > > + skel = test_sockmap_progs_query__open_and_load();
> > > + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel,
> > "test_sockmap_progs_query__open_and_load"))
> > > + return;
> > > +
> > > + map_fd = bpf_map__fd(skel->maps.sock_map);
> > > +
> > > + if (attach_type == BPF_SK_MSG_VERDICT)
> > > + verdict_fd =
> > bpf_program__fd(skel->progs.prog_skmsg_verdict);
> > > + else
> > > + verdict_fd =
> > bpf_program__fd(skel->progs.prog_skb_verdict);
> > > +
> > > + err = bpf_prog_query(map_fd, attach_type, 0 /* query flags */,
> > > + &attach_flags, prog_ids, &prog_cnt);
> > > + if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "bpf_prog_query failed"))
> > > + goto out;
> > > +
> > > + if (!ASSERT_EQ(attach_flags, 0, "wrong attach_flags on query"))
> > > + goto out;
> > > +
> > > + if (!ASSERT_EQ(prog_cnt, 0, "wrong program count on query"))
> > > + goto out;
I mean here that you can do just
ASSERT_OK(err, ...);
ASSERT_EQ(attach_flags, ...);
ASSERT_EQ(prog_cnt, ...);
No if + goto necessary.
> > > +
> > > + err = bpf_prog_attach(verdict_fd, map_fd, attach_type, 0);
> > > + if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "bpf_prog_attach failed"))
> > > + goto out;
> > > +
> > > + prog_cnt = 1;
> > > + err = bpf_prog_query(map_fd, attach_type, 0 /* query flags */,
> > > + &attach_flags, prog_ids, &prog_cnt);
> > > +
> > > + ASSERT_OK(err, "bpf_prog_query failed");
> > > + ASSERT_EQ(attach_flags, 0, "wrong attach_flags on query");
> > > + ASSERT_EQ(prog_cnt, 1, "wrong program count on query");
> > > + ASSERT_EQ(prog_ids[0], query_prog_id(verdict_fd),
> > > + "wrong prog_ids on query");
> >
> > See how much easier it is to follow these tests, why didn't you do the
> > same with err, attach_flags and prog above?
>
> It is recommended by Yonghong Song to increase the test coverage.
see above
>
> >
> >
> > > +
> > > + bpf_prog_detach2(verdict_fd, map_fd, attach_type);
> > > +out:
> > > + test_sockmap_progs_query__destroy(skel);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > void test_sockmap_basic(void)
> > > {
> > > if (test__start_subtest("sockmap create_update_free"))
> > > @@ -341,4 +405,10 @@ void test_sockmap_basic(void)
> > >
> > test_sockmap_skb_verdict_attach(BPF_SK_SKB_STREAM_VERDICT,
> > >
> > BPF_SK_SKB_VERDICT);
> > > }
> > > + if (test__start_subtest("sockmap progs query")) {
> > > + test_sockmap_progs_query(BPF_SK_MSG_VERDICT);
> > > +
> > test_sockmap_progs_query(BPF_SK_SKB_STREAM_PARSER);
> > > +
> > test_sockmap_progs_query(BPF_SK_SKB_STREAM_VERDICT);
> > > + test_sockmap_progs_query(BPF_SK_SKB_VERDICT);
> >
> > Why are these not separate subtests? What's the benefit of bundling
> > them into one subtest?
> >
>
> These are essentially doing the same thing, just for different program attach types.
Right, so they are independent subtests, no? Not separate tests, but
not one subtest either.
>
> > > + }
> > > }
> > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_sockmap_progs_query.c
> > b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_sockmap_progs_query.c
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 000000000000..9d58d61c0dee
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_sockmap_progs_query.c
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
> > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > > +#include "vmlinux.h"
> > > +#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
> > > +
> > > +struct {
> > > + __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_SOCKMAP);
> > > + __uint(max_entries, 1);
> > > + __type(key, __u32);
> > > + __type(value, __u64);
> > > +} sock_map SEC(".maps");
> > > +
> > > +SEC("sk_skb")
> > > +int prog_skb_verdict(struct __sk_buff *skb)
> > > +{
> > > + return SK_PASS;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +SEC("sk_msg")
> > > +int prog_skmsg_verdict(struct sk_msg_md *msg)
> > > +{
> > > + return SK_PASS;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
> > > --
> > > 2.27.0
> > >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists