linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/4] selftests/bpf: Replaces the usage of CHECK calls for ASSERTs in bpf_tcp

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <14c7dea0-242c-4b47-929c-7cbd1d7e202a@linux.dev>
Date:   Mon, 20 Nov 2023 07:22:59 -0800
From:   Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>
To:     Yuran Pereira <yuran.pereira@...mail.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     andrii@...nel.org, andrii.nakryiko@...il.com, mykolal@...com,
        ast@...nel.org, martin.lau@...ux.dev, song@...nel.org,
        john.fastabend@...il.com, kpsingh@...nel.org, sdf@...gle.com,
        haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org, shuah@...nel.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/4] selftests/bpf: Replaces the usage of
 CHECK calls for ASSERTs in bpf_tcp_ca


On 11/18/23 1:42 PM, Yuran Pereira wrote:
> bpf_tcp_ca uses the `CHECK` calls even though the use of
> ASSERT_ series of macros is preferred in the bpf selftests.
>
> This patch replaces all `CHECK` calls for equivalent `ASSERT_`
> macro calls.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yuran Pereira <yuran.pereira@...mail.com>
> ---
>   .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_tcp_ca.c     | 50 +++++++++----------
>   1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_tcp_ca.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_tcp_ca.c
> index 4aabeaa525d4..6d610b66ec38 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_tcp_ca.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_tcp_ca.c
> @@ -20,15 +20,14 @@
>   
>   static const unsigned int total_bytes = 10 * 1024 * 1024;
>   static int expected_stg = 0xeB9F;
> -static int stop, duration;
> +static int stop;
>   
> [...]
> @@ -108,26 +107,27 @@ static void do_test(const char *tcp_ca, const struct bpf_map *sk_stg_map)
>   	sa6.sin6_family = AF_INET6;
>   	sa6.sin6_addr = in6addr_loopback;
>   	err = bind(lfd, (struct sockaddr *)&sa6, addrlen);
> -	if (CHECK(err == -1, "bind", "errno:%d\n", errno))
> +	if (!ASSERT_NEQ(err, -1, "bind"))
>   		goto done;
> +
>   	err = getsockname(lfd, (struct sockaddr *)&sa6, &addrlen);
> -	if (CHECK(err == -1, "getsockname", "errno:%d\n", errno))
> +	if (!ASSERT_NEQ(err, -1, "getsockname"))
>   		goto done;
> +
>   	err = listen(lfd, 1);
> -	if (CHECK(err == -1, "listen", "errno:%d\n", errno))
> +	if (!ASSERT_NEQ(err, -1, "listen"))
>   		goto done;
>   
>   	if (sk_stg_map) {
>   		err = bpf_map_update_elem(bpf_map__fd(sk_stg_map), &fd,
>   					  &expected_stg, BPF_NOEXIST);
> -		if (CHECK(err, "bpf_map_update_elem(sk_stg_map)",
> -			  "err:%d errno:%d\n", err, errno))
> +		if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "bpf_map_update_elem(sk_stg_map)"))
>   			goto done;
>   	}
>   
>   	/* connect to server */
>   	err = connect(fd, (struct sockaddr *)&sa6, addrlen);
> -	if (CHECK(err == -1, "connect", "errno:%d\n", errno))
> +	if (!ASSERT_NEQ(err, -1, "connect"))
>   		goto done;
>   
>   	if (sk_stg_map) {
> @@ -135,14 +135,13 @@ static void do_test(const char *tcp_ca, const struct bpf_map *sk_stg_map)
>   
>   		err = bpf_map_lookup_elem(bpf_map__fd(sk_stg_map), &fd,
>   					  &tmp_stg);
> -		if (CHECK(!err || errno != ENOENT,
> -			  "bpf_map_lookup_elem(sk_stg_map)",
> -			  "err:%d errno:%d\n", err, errno))
> +		if (!ASSERT_NEQ(err, 0, "bpf_map_lookup_elem(sk_stg_map)") ||

!ASSERT_ERR(err, "bpf_map_lookup_elem(sk_stg_map)")
might be simpler than !ASSERT_NEQ(..).

> +				!ASSERT_EQ(errno, ENOENT, "bpf_map_lookup_elem(sk_stg_map)"))
>   			goto done;
>   	}
>   
>   	err = pthread_create(&srv_thread, NULL, server, (void *)(long)lfd);
> -	if (CHECK(err != 0, "pthread_create", "err:%d errno:%d\n", err, errno))
> +	if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "pthread_create"))
>   		goto done;
>   
>   	/* recv total_bytes */
> @@ -156,13 +155,12 @@ static void do_test(const char *tcp_ca, const struct bpf_map *sk_stg_map)
>   		bytes += nr_recv;
>   	}
>   
> -	CHECK(bytes != total_bytes, "recv", "%zd != %u nr_recv:%zd errno:%d\n",
> -	      bytes, total_bytes, nr_recv, errno);
> +	ASSERT_EQ(bytes, total_bytes, "recv");
>   
>   	WRITE_ONCE(stop, 1);
> -	pthread_join(srv_thread, &thread_ret);
> -	CHECK(IS_ERR(thread_ret), "pthread_join", "thread_ret:%ld",
> -	      PTR_ERR(thread_ret));
> +	err = pthread_join(srv_thread, &thread_ret);
> +	ASSERT_OK(err, "pthread_join");

The above is not equivalent to the original code.
The original didn't check pthread_join() return as it
is very very unlikely to fail. And check 'thread_ret'
is still needed.

> +
>   done:
>   	close(lfd);
>   	close(fd);
> @@ -174,7 +172,7 @@ static void test_cubic(void)
>   	struct bpf_link *link;
>   
>   	cubic_skel = bpf_cubic__open_and_load();
> -	if (CHECK(!cubic_skel, "bpf_cubic__open_and_load", "failed\n"))
> +	if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(cubic_skel, "bpf_cubic__open_and_load"))
>   		return;

[...]