| 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: <50d29ea7-09b8-9026-e127-8c21a4bb9706@meta.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2023 20:29:33 -0700
From: Yonghong Song <yhs@...a.com>
To: menglong8.dong@...il.com, andrii.nakryiko@...il.com,
alan.maguire@...cle.com
Cc: ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org,
martin.lau@...ux.dev, song@...nel.org, yhs@...com,
john.fastabend@...il.com, kpsingh@...nel.org, sdf@...gle.com,
haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Menglong Dong <imagedong@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 3/3] selftests/bpf: add testcase for
FENTRY/FEXIT with 6+ arguments
On 6/9/23 2:56 AM, menglong8.dong@...il.com wrote:
> From: Menglong Dong <imagedong@...cent.com>
>
> Add test9/test10 in fexit_test.c and fentry_test.c to test the fentry
> and fexit whose target function have 7/12 arguments.
>
> Correspondingly, add bpf_testmod_fentry_test7() and
> bpf_testmod_fentry_test12() to bpf_testmod.c
>
> And the testcases passed:
>
> ./test_progs -t fexit
> Summary: 5/12 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
>
> ./test_progs -t fentry
> Summary: 3/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
>
> Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong <imagedong@...cent.com>
> ---
> v4:
> - use different type for args in bpf_testmod_fentry_test{7,12}
> - add testcase for grabage values in ctx
> v3:
> - move bpf_fentry_test{7,12} to bpf_testmod.c and rename them to
> bpf_testmod_fentry_test{7,12} meanwhile
> - get return value by bpf_get_func_ret() in
> "fexit/bpf_testmod_fentry_test12", as we don't change ___bpf_ctx_cast()
> in this version
> ---
> .../selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c | 19 ++++++-
> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fentry_fexit.c | 4 +-
> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fentry_test.c | 2 +
> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fexit_test.c | 2 +
> .../testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_test.c | 33 +++++++++++
> .../testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fexit_test.c | 57 +++++++++++++++++++
> 6 files changed, 115 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
> index cf216041876c..66615fdbe3df 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
> @@ -191,6 +191,19 @@ noinline int bpf_testmod_fentry_test3(char a, int b, u64 c)
> return a + b + c;
> }
>
> +noinline int bpf_testmod_fentry_test7(u64 a, void *b, short c, int d,
> + void *e, u64 f, u64 g)
> +{
> + return a + (long)b + c + d + (long)e + f + g;
> +}
> +
> +noinline int bpf_testmod_fentry_test12(u64 a, void *b, short c, int d,
> + void *e, u64 f, u64 g, u64 h,
> + u64 i, u64 j, u64 k, u64 l)
> +{
> + return a + (long)b + c + d + (long)e + f + g + h + i + j + k + l;
> +}
It would be great to add a couple cases with struct arguments
where each struct has 8 < struct_size <= 16.
> __diag_pop();
>
> int bpf_testmod_fentry_ok;
> @@ -245,7 +258,11 @@ bpf_testmod_test_read(struct file *file, struct kobject *kobj,
>
> if (bpf_testmod_fentry_test1(1) != 2 ||
> bpf_testmod_fentry_test2(2, 3) != 5 ||
> - bpf_testmod_fentry_test3(4, 5, 6) != 15)
> + bpf_testmod_fentry_test3(4, 5, 6) != 15 ||
> + bpf_testmod_fentry_test7(16, (void *)17, 18, 19, (void *)20,
> + 21, 22) != 133 ||
> + bpf_testmod_fentry_test12(16, (void *)17, 18, 19, (void *)20,
> + 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27) != 258)
> goto out;
>
> bpf_testmod_fentry_ok = 1;
[...]
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fexit_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fexit_test.c
> index 8f1ccb7302e1..a6d8e03ff5b7 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fexit_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fexit_test.c
> @@ -78,3 +78,60 @@ int BPF_PROG(test8, struct bpf_fentry_test_t *arg)
> test8_result = 1;
> return 0;
> }
> +
> +__u64 test9_result = 0;
> +SEC("fexit/bpf_testmod_fentry_test7")
> +int BPF_PROG(test9, __u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, void *e, char f,
> + int g, int ret)
> +{
> + test9_result = a == 16 && b == (void *)17 && c == 18 && d == 19 &&
> + e == (void *)20 && f == 21 && g == 22 && ret == 133;
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +__u64 test10_result = 0;
> +SEC("fexit/bpf_testmod_fentry_test12")
> +int BPF_PROG(test10, __u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, void *e, char f,
> + int g, unsigned int h, long i, __u64 j, unsigned long k,
> + unsigned char l)
> +{
> + __u64 ret;
> + int err;
> +
> + /* BPF_PROG() don't support 14 arguments, and ctx[12] can't be
> + * accessed yet. So we get the return value by bpf_get_func_ret()
> + * for now.
> + */
> + err = bpf_get_func_ret(ctx, &ret);
Maybe just have 11 arguments for this test case?
> + if (err)
> + return 0;
> +
> + test10_result = a == 16 && b == (void *)17 && c == 18 && d == 19 &&
> + e == (void *)20 && f == 21 && g == 22 && h == 23 &&
> + i == 24 && j == 25 && k == 26 && l == 27 &&
> + (int)ret == 258;
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +__u64 test11_result = 0;
> +SEC("fexit/bpf_testmod_fentry_test12")
> +int BPF_PROG(test11, __u64 a, __u64 b, __u64 c, __u64 d, __u64 e, __u64 f,
> + __u64 g, __u64 h, __u64 i, __u64 j, __u64 k, __u64 l)
> +{
> + __u64 ret;
> + int err;
> +
> + /* BPF_PROG() don't support 14 arguments, and ctx[12] can't be
> + * accessed yet. So we get the return value by bpf_get_func_ret()
> + * for now.
> + */
> + err = bpf_get_func_ret(ctx, &ret);
> + if (err)
> + return 0;
> +
> + test11_result = a == 16 && b == 17 && c == 18 && d == 19 &&
> + e == 20 && f == 21 && g == 22 && h == 23 &&
> + i == 24 && j == 25 && k == 26 && l == 27 &&
> + ret == 258;
> + return 0;
> +}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists