netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 3/4] bpf: selftest additions for SOCKHASH

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:   Thu, 10 May 2018 00:53:54 +0200
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, borkmann@...earbox.net,
        ast@...nel.org
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 3/4] bpf: selftest additions for SOCKHASH

Hi John,

On 05/06/2018 01:25 AM, John Fastabend wrote:
> This runs existing SOCKMAP tests with SOCKHASH map type. To do this
> we push programs into include file and build two BPF programs. One
> for SOCKHASH and one for SOCKMAP.
> 
> We then run the entire test suite with each type.
> 
> Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
> Acked-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
[...]
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile
> index 9d76218..28316f1 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile
> @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ TEST_GEN_FILES = test_pkt_access.o test_xdp.o test_l4lb.o test_tcp_estats.o test
>  	sample_map_ret0.o test_tcpbpf_kern.o test_stacktrace_build_id.o \
>  	sockmap_tcp_msg_prog.o connect4_prog.o connect6_prog.o test_adjust_tail.o \
>  	test_btf_haskv.o test_btf_nokv.o test_sockmap_kern.o test_tunnel_kern.o \
> -	test_get_stack_rawtp.o
> +	test_get_stack_rawtp.o test_sockmap_kern.o test_sockhash_kern.o
>  
>  # Order correspond to 'make run_tests' order
>  TEST_PROGS := test_kmod.sh \
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockhash_kern.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockhash_kern.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..3bf4ad4
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockhash_kern.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +// Copyright (c) 2018 Covalent IO, Inc. http://covalent.io
> +#define TEST_MAP_TYPE BPF_MAP_TYPE_SOCKHASH
> +#include "./test_sockmap_kern.h"
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c
> index 29c022d..df7afc7 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c
> @@ -47,7 +47,8 @@
>  #define S1_PORT 10000
>  #define S2_PORT 10001
>  
> -#define BPF_FILENAME "test_sockmap_kern.o"
> +#define BPF_SOCKMAP_FILENAME "test_sockmap_kern.o"
> +#define BPF_SOCKHASH_FILENAME "test_sockmap_kern.o"

Is this testing the right thing? Shouldn't above BPF_SOCKHASH_FILENAME say "test_sockhash_kern.o"
in order to select the correct BPF prog for hashmap? Seems here we're testing sock/arraymap twice.

>  #define CG_PATH "/sockmap"
>  
[...]
> +static int test_suite(void)
> +{
> +	int err;
> +
> +	err = __test_suite(BPF_SOCKMAP_FILENAME);
> +	if (err)
> +		goto out;
> +	err = __test_suite(BPF_SOCKHASH_FILENAME);
> +out:
> +	return err;
> +}
> +
Thanks,
Daniel