[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <eae58ded-7d6b-bf26-d302-391e3746f7ac@fb.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2022 22:26:51 -0700
From: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
To: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>
Cc: ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org,
martin.lau@...ux.dev, song@...nel.org, john.fastabend@...il.com,
sdf@...gle.com, haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org,
mykolal@...com, dhowells@...hat.com, jarkko@...nel.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org, mingo@...hat.com, paul@...l-moore.com,
jmorris@...ei.org, serge@...lyn.com, shuah@...nel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
deso@...teo.net, memxor@...il.com,
Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>,
Joanne Koong <joannelkoong@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 11/12] selftests/bpf: Add test for
bpf_verify_pkcs7_signature() kfunc
On 9/19/22 6:09 AM, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> On Mon, 2022-09-19 at 13:17 +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote:
>> On Thu, 2022-09-15 at 17:11 +0100, KP Singh wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 1:10 PM Roberto Sassu
>>> <roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com> wrote:
>>>> From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
>>>>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> +}
>>>> diff --git
>>>> a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_verify_pkcs7_sig.c
>>>> b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_verify_pkcs7_sig.c
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 000000000000..4ceab545d99a
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_verify_pkcs7_sig.c
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,100 @@
>>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>>>> +
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * Copyright (C) 2022 Huawei Technologies Duesseldorf GmbH
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Author: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
>>>> + */
>>>> +
>>>> +#include "vmlinux.h"
>>>> +#include <errno.h>
>>>> +#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
>>>> +#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
>>>> +
>>>> +#define MAX_DATA_SIZE (1024 * 1024)
>>>> +#define MAX_SIG_SIZE 1024
>>>> +
>>>> +typedef __u8 u8;
>>>> +typedef __u16 u16;
>>>> +typedef __u32 u32;
>>>> +typedef __u64 u64;
>>>
>>> I think you can avoid this and just use u32 and u64 directly.
>>
>> Thanks, yes.
>>
>>> +
>>>> +struct bpf_dynptr {
>>>> + __u64 :64;
>>>> + __u64 :64;
>>>> +} __attribute__((aligned(8)));
>>>> +
>>>
>>> I think you are doing this because including the uapi headers
>>> causes
>>> type conflicts.
>>> This does happen quite often. What do other folks think about doing
>>> something like
>>>
>>> #define DYNPTR(x) ((void *)x)
>>>
>>> It seems like this will be an issue anytime we use the helpers with
>>> vmlinux.h and users
>>> will always have to define this type in their tests.
>>
>> It seems it is sufficient to use struct bpf_dynptr somehow in the
>> kernel code. That causes the definition to be exported with BTF. Not
>> sure what would be the proper place to do that. When I tried, I
>> declared a unused variable.
>
> Easier:
>
> BTF_TYPE_EMIT(struct bpf_dynptr);
>
> I added it in bpf_dynptr_from_mem(), right?
Yes, you can add it to a related function. The BTF_TYPE_EMIT
will be optimized out by the compiler.
>
> Thanks
>
> Roberto
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists