linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 2/3] selftests/bpf: convert test_bpftool_metadata.sh into test

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]

Message-Id: <DFUYORZLZEX5.T1T4UT063RRM@bootlin.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2026 09:06:24 +0100
From: Alexis Lothoré <alexis.lothore@...tlin.com>
To: <bot+bpf-ci@...nel.org>, <alexis.lothore@...tlin.com>,
 <andrii@...nel.org>, <eddyz87@...il.com>, <ast@...nel.org>,
 <daniel@...earbox.net>, <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, <song@...nel.org>,
 <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>, <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
 <kpsingh@...nel.org>, <sdf@...ichev.me>, <haoluo@...gle.com>,
 <jolsa@...nel.org>, <shuah@...nel.org>, <qmo@...nel.org>
Cc: <ebpf@...uxfoundation.org>, <bastien.curutchet@...tlin.com>,
 <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
 <martin.lau@...nel.org>, <clm@...a.com>, <ihor.solodrai@...ux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 2/3] selftests/bpf: convert
 test_bpftool_metadata.sh into test_progs framework

On Wed Jan 21, 2026 at 9:50 PM CET, bot+bpf-ci wrote:
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpftool_metadata.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpftool_metadata.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..b5598741a01c
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpftool_metadata.c
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> +static void run_test(struct test_desc *test)
>> +{
>> +	int ret;
>> +	char cmd[MAX_BPFTOOL_CMD_LEN];
>> +
>> +	ret = snprintf(cmd, MAX_BPFTOOL_CMD_LEN, "prog load %s %s",
>> +			test->bpf_prog, test->bpffs_path);
>> +	if (!ASSERT_GT(ret, 0, "format prog insert command"))
>> +		return;
>> +	ret = run_bpftool_command(cmd);
>> +	if (!ASSERT_OK(ret, "load program"))
>> +		return;
>> +
>> +	/* Check output with default format */
>> +	ret = snprintf(cmd, MAX_BPFTOOL_CMD_LEN, "prog show pinned %s",
>> +		       test->bpffs_path);
>> +	if (!ASSERT_GT(ret, 0, "format pinned prog check command"))
>> +		return;
>> +	ret = get_bpftool_command_output(cmd, output,
>> +			MAX_BPFTOOL_OUTPUT_LEN);
>> +	if (ASSERT_OK(ret, "get program info")) {
>> +		ret = check_metadata(output, test->expected_output,
>> +				ARRAY_SIZE(test->expected_output));
>> +		ASSERT_OK(ret, "find metadata");
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	/* Check output with json format */
>> +	ret = snprintf(cmd, MAX_BPFTOOL_CMD_LEN, "prog -j show pinned %s",
>> +		       test->bpffs_path);
>> +	if (!ASSERT_GT(ret, 0, "format pinned prog check command in json"))
>> +		return;
>> +	ret = get_bpftool_command_output(cmd, output,
>> +					 MAX_BPFTOOL_OUTPUT_LEN);
>> +	if (ASSERT_OK(ret, "get program info in json")) {
>> +		ret = check_metadata(output, test->expected_output_json,
>> +				ARRAY_SIZE(test->expected_output_json));
>> +		ASSERT_OK(ret, "find metadata in json");
>> +	}
>> +
>> +}
>
> The original shell script also verified the map listing output:
>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_bpftool_metadata.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_bpftool_metadata.sh
>> deleted file mode 100755
>> index b5520692f41b..000000000000
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_bpftool_metadata.sh
>> +++ /dev/null
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> -bpftool prog --json | grep '"metadata":{"a":"foo","b":1}' > /dev/null
>> -
>> -bpftool map | grep 'metadata.rodata' > /dev/null
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> -bpftool prog --json | grep '"metadata":{"a":"bar","b":2}' > /dev/null
>> -
>> -bpftool map | grep 'metadata.rodata' > /dev/null
>
> Was the "bpftool map | grep 'metadata.rodata'" check intentionally removed
> from the converted test? The original script verified that the metadata map
> appeared in bpftool's map listing, which tests a different code path than
> the "prog show" commands. If this was dropped on purpose, it might be worth
> a comment explaining why; otherwise this appears to be a test coverage
> regression.
>
>
> ---
> AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug.
> See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md
>
> CI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/21225032840

The bot is right, I forgot to port this specific check. That will be
added in the next revision.

Alexis

-- 
Alexis Lothoré, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com