| 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: <20d0c45e-8e1a-4bb9-93eb-8487d8d79651@linux.dev>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2023 21:42:56 -0700
From: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>
To: Kui-Feng Lee <sinquersw@...il.com>,
Yuran Pereira <yuran.pereira@...mail.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Cc: shuah@...nel.org, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
song@...nel.org, john.fastabend@...il.com, kpsingh@...nel.org,
sdf@...gle.com, haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org,
mykolal@...com, brauner@...nel.org, iii@...ux.ibm.com,
kuifeng@...a.com, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/2] selftests/bpf: Convert CHECK macros to
ASSERT_* macros in bpf_iter
On 10/25/23 9:33 PM, Kui-Feng Lee wrote:
>
>
> On 10/25/23 19:03, Yuran Pereira wrote:
>> As it was pointed out by Yonghong Song [1], in the bpf selftests the use
>> of the ASSERT_* series of macros is preferred over the CHECK macro.
>> This patch replaces all CHECK calls in bpf_iter with the appropriate
>> ASSERT_* macros.
>>
>> [1]
>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/0a142924-633c-44e6-9a92-2dc019656bf2@linux.dev
>>
>> Suggested-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>
>> Signed-off-by: Yuran Pereira <yuran.pereira@...mail.com>
>> ---
>> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_iter.c | 82 +++++++++----------
>> 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_iter.c
>> b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_iter.c
>> index 1f02168103dd..7db6972ed952 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_iter.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_iter.c
>> @@ -34,8 +34,6 @@
>> #include "bpf_iter_ksym.skel.h"
>> #include "bpf_iter_sockmap.skel.h"
>> -static int duration;
>> -
>> static void test_btf_id_or_null(void)
>> {
>> struct bpf_iter_test_kern3 *skel;
>> @@ -64,7 +62,7 @@ static void do_dummy_read_opts(struct bpf_program
>> *prog, struct bpf_iter_attach_
>> /* not check contents, but ensure read() ends without error */
>> while ((len = read(iter_fd, buf, sizeof(buf))) > 0)
>> ;
>> - CHECK(len < 0, "read", "read failed: %s\n", strerror(errno));
>> + ASSERT_GE(len, 0, "read");
>> close(iter_fd);
>> @@ -413,7 +411,7 @@ static int do_btf_read(struct bpf_iter_task_btf
>> *skel)
>> goto free_link;
>> }
>> - if (CHECK(err < 0, "read", "read failed: %s\n", strerror(errno)))
>> + if (!ASSERT_GE(err, 0, "read"))
>> goto free_link;
>> ASSERT_HAS_SUBSTR(taskbuf, "(struct task_struct)",
>> @@ -526,11 +524,11 @@ static int do_read_with_fd(int iter_fd, const
>> char *expected,
>> start = 0;
>> while ((len = read(iter_fd, buf + start, read_buf_len)) > 0) {
>> start += len;
>> - if (CHECK(start >= 16, "read", "read len %d\n", len))
>> + if (!ASSERT_LT(start, 16, "read"))
>> return -1;
>> read_buf_len = read_one_char ? 1 : 16 - start;
>> }
>> - if (CHECK(len < 0, "read", "read failed: %s\n", strerror(errno)))
>> + if (!ASSERT_GE(len, 0, "read"))
>> return -1;
>> if (!ASSERT_STREQ(buf, expected, "read"))
>> @@ -571,8 +569,7 @@ static int do_read(const char *path, const char
>> *expected)
>> int err, iter_fd;
>> iter_fd = open(path, O_RDONLY);
>> - if (CHECK(iter_fd < 0, "open", "open %s failed: %s\n",
>> - path, strerror(errno)))
>> + if (!ASSERT_GE(iter_fd, 0, "open"))
>> return -1;
>> err = do_read_with_fd(iter_fd, expected, false);
>> @@ -600,7 +597,7 @@ static void test_file_iter(void)
>> unlink(path);
>> err = bpf_link__pin(link, path);
>> - if (CHECK(err, "pin_iter", "pin_iter to %s failed: %d\n", path,
>> err))
>> + if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "pin_iter"))
>> goto free_link;
>> err = do_read(path, "abcd");
>> @@ -651,12 +648,10 @@ static void test_overflow(bool
>> test_e2big_overflow, bool ret1)
>> * overflow and needs restart.
>> */
>> map1_fd = bpf_map_create(BPF_MAP_TYPE_ARRAY, NULL, 4, 8, 1, NULL);
>> - if (CHECK(map1_fd < 0, "bpf_map_create",
>> - "map_creation failed: %s\n", strerror(errno)))
>> + if (!ASSERT_GE(map1_fd, 0, "bpf_map_create"))
>> goto out;
>> map2_fd = bpf_map_create(BPF_MAP_TYPE_ARRAY, NULL, 4, 8, 1, NULL);
>> - if (CHECK(map2_fd < 0, "bpf_map_create",
>> - "map_creation failed: %s\n", strerror(errno)))
>> + if (!ASSERT_GE(map2_fd, 0, "bpf_map_create"))
>> goto free_map1;
>> /* bpf_seq_printf kernel buffer is 8 pages, so one map
>> @@ -685,14 +680,12 @@ static void test_overflow(bool
>> test_e2big_overflow, bool ret1)
>> /* setup filtering map_id in bpf program */
>> map_info_len = sizeof(map_info);
>> err = bpf_map_get_info_by_fd(map1_fd, &map_info, &map_info_len);
>> - if (CHECK(err, "get_map_info", "get map info failed: %s\n",
>> - strerror(errno)))
>> + if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "get_map_info"))
>> goto free_map2;
>> skel->bss->map1_id = map_info.id;
>> err = bpf_map_get_info_by_fd(map2_fd, &map_info, &map_info_len);
>> - if (CHECK(err, "get_map_info", "get map info failed: %s\n",
>> - strerror(errno)))
>> + if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "get_map_info"))
>> goto free_map2;
>> skel->bss->map2_id = map_info.id;
>> @@ -714,16 +707,15 @@ static void test_overflow(bool
>> test_e2big_overflow, bool ret1)
>> while ((len = read(iter_fd, buf, expected_read_len)) > 0)
>> total_read_len += len;
>> - CHECK(len != -1 || errno != E2BIG, "read",
>> - "expected ret -1, errno E2BIG, but get ret %d, error
>> %s\n",
>> - len, strerror(errno));
>> + if (!ASSERT_EQ(len, -1, "read"))
>> + goto free_buf;
>> + ASSERT_EQ(errno, E2BIG, "read");
>
> I think you can just do
>
> ASSERT_EQ(len, -1, "read");
> ASSERT_EQ(errno, E2BG, "read");
>
> without a check here.
> WDYT?
Many recent selftests have ASSERT_* similar to what Kui-Feng is suggested.
So I think it is okay to do adjustment like it. The same for some other suggestions
below.
But since this patch intends to convert CHECK to ASSERT_*, so other possible
'optimizations' like above ASSERT_EQ can stay as is since they do not really
affect functionality.
In the next revision, please put three patches 0/2, 1/2 and 2/2 together as a single
patch set. Thanks.
>
>> goto free_buf;
>> } else if (!ret1) {
>> while ((len = read(iter_fd, buf, expected_read_len)) > 0)
>> total_read_len += len;
>> - if (CHECK(len < 0, "read", "read failed: %s\n",
>> - strerror(errno)))
>> + if (!ASSERT_GE(len, 0, "read"))
>> goto free_buf;
>> } else {
>> do {
>> @@ -732,8 +724,7 @@ static void test_overflow(bool
>> test_e2big_overflow, bool ret1)
>> total_read_len += len;
>> } while (len > 0 || len == -EAGAIN);
>> - if (CHECK(len < 0, "read", "read failed: %s\n",
>> - strerror(errno)))
>> + if (!ASSERT_GE(len, 0, "read"))
>> goto free_buf;
>> }
>> @@ -836,7 +827,7 @@ static void test_bpf_hash_map(void)
>> /* do some tests */
>> while ((len = read(iter_fd, buf, sizeof(buf))) > 0)
>> ;
>> - if (CHECK(len < 0, "read", "read failed: %s\n", strerror(errno)))
>> + if (!ASSERT_GE(len, 0, "read"))
>> goto close_iter;
>> /* test results */
>> @@ -917,7 +908,7 @@ static void test_bpf_percpu_hash_map(void)
>> /* do some tests */
>> while ((len = read(iter_fd, buf, sizeof(buf))) > 0)
>> ;
>> - if (CHECK(len < 0, "read", "read failed: %s\n", strerror(errno)))
>> + if (!ASSERT_GE(len, 0, "read"))
>> goto close_iter;
>> /* test results */
>> @@ -983,17 +974,15 @@ static void test_bpf_array_map(void)
>> start = 0;
>> while ((len = read(iter_fd, buf + start, sizeof(buf) - start))
>> > 0)
>> start += len;
>> - if (CHECK(len < 0, "read", "read failed: %s\n", strerror(errno)))
>> + if (!ASSERT_GE(len, 0, "read"))
>> goto close_iter;
>> /* test results */
>> res_first_key = *(__u32 *)buf;
>> res_first_val = *(__u64 *)(buf + sizeof(__u32));
>> - if (CHECK(res_first_key != 0 || res_first_val != first_val,
>> - "bpf_seq_write",
>> - "seq_write failure: first key %u vs expected 0, "
>> - " first value %llu vs expected %llu\n",
>> - res_first_key, res_first_val, first_val))
>> + if (!ASSERT_EQ(res_first_key, 0, "bpf_seq_write"))
>> + goto close_iter;
>> + else if (!ASSERT_EQ(res_first_val, first_val, "bpf_seq_write"))
>> goto close_iter;
>
> Similiar here!
>
> if (!ASSERT_EQ(...) ||
> !ASSERT_EQ(...))
> goto close_iter;
>
> [...]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists