linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2] selftests/bpf: Include runner extras for install target

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2024 10:03:25 +0100
From: Björn Töpel <bjorn@...nel.org>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann
 <daniel@...earbox.net>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Mykola
 Lysenko <mykolal@...com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 Björn Töpel <bjorn@...osinc.com>,
 linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2] selftests/bpf: Include runner extras for
 install target

Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> writes:

> On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 8:05 AM Björn Töpel <bjorn@...nel.org> wrote:
>>
>> From: Björn Töpel <bjorn@...osinc.com>
>>
>> When using the "install" or targets depending on install, e.g.
>> "gen_tar", the "runner extras" weren't included for the BPF machine
>> flavors.
>>
>> Make sure the necessary helper scripts/tools are added to
>> corresponding BPF machine flavor.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn@...osinc.com>
>> ---
>> v2: Added btf_dump_test_case files
>> ---
>> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile | 18 +++++++++++++++---
>>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile
>> index fd15017ed3b1..d5cff32997b3 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile
>> @@ -744,8 +744,20 @@ EXTRA_CLEAN := $(TEST_CUSTOM_PROGS) $(SCRATCH_DIR) $(HOST_SCRATCH_DIR)     \
>>  DEFAULT_INSTALL_RULE := $(INSTALL_RULE)
>>  override define INSTALL_RULE
>>         $(DEFAULT_INSTALL_RULE)
>> -       @for DIR in $(TEST_INST_SUBDIRS); do              \
>> -               mkdir -p $(INSTALL_PATH)/$$DIR;   \
>> -               rsync -a $(OUTPUT)/$$DIR/*.bpf.o $(INSTALL_PATH)/$$DIR;\
>> +       @for DIR in $(TEST_INST_SUBDIRS); do                    \
>> +               mkdir -p $(INSTALL_PATH)/$$DIR;                 \
>> +               rsync -a --copy-unsafe-links                    \
>> +                       $(OUTPUT)/$$DIR/bpf_testmod.ko          \
>> +                       $(OUTPUT)/$$DIR/bpftool                 \
>> +                       $(OUTPUT)/$$DIR/ima_setup.sh            \
>> +                       $(OUTPUT)/$$DIR/liburandom_read.so      \
>> +                       $(OUTPUT)/$$DIR/sign-file               \
>> +                       $(OUTPUT)/$$DIR/uprobe_multi            \
>> +                       $(OUTPUT)/$$DIR/urandom_read            \
>> +                       $(OUTPUT)/$$DIR/verify_sig_setup.sh     \
>> +                       $(OUTPUT)/$$DIR/xdp_synproxy            \
>> +                       $(OUTPUT)/$$DIR/btf_dump_test_case_*.c  \
>> +                       $(OUTPUT)/$$DIR/*.bpf.o                 \
>> +                       $(INSTALL_PATH)/$$DIR;                  \
>
> My concern is that this will get out of sync and will go unnoticed
> next time we add another "extra" file. We have TRUNNER_EXTRA_FILES,
> should we use that list to keep these extras in fewer places?

Yeah, you're completely right -- this was a lazy approach. I'll spin a
more robust v3.


Cheers,
Björn