netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] selftests/bpf: skip verifier tests that depend on CONFIG_CGROUP

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: <20181212185131.yz7bxscdokfavna3@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Wed, 12 Dec 2018 10:51:33 -0800
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, ast@...nel.org,
        daniel@...earbox.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] selftests/bpf: skip verifier tests that
 depend on CONFIG_CGROUP_BPF

On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 10:27:24AM -0800, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> The following prog types don't make sense without bpf cgroup:
> * BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SKB
> * BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SOCK
> * BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SOCK_ADDR
> 
> Skip running verifier tests that exercise these prog types if
> kernel is built without proper support.
> 
> See commit e5c504858a18 ("selftests/bpf: skip verifier sockmap tests
> on kernels without support") for original motivation.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 35 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> index f5015566ae1b..b5470a399996 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> @@ -44,6 +44,7 @@
>  /* fallback to all features enabled */
>  # define CONFIG_BPF_STREAM_PARSER 1
>  # define CONFIG_XDP_SOCKETS 1
> +# define CONFIG_CGROUP_BPF 1

I really don't like where these is going.
I think previous set should be reverted.
This is not a scalable approach.
Use libbpf probing approach to check whether feature is present instead.