netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 5/8] tools/bpf: add test_btf unit tests for kind

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: <20181215210331.rb3eubrxfzbz2r75@kafai-mbp>
Date:   Sat, 15 Dec 2018 21:03:33 +0000
From:   Martin Lau <kafai@...com>
To:     Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
CC:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 5/8] tools/bpf: add test_btf unit tests for
 kind_flag

On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 03:34:30PM -0800, Yonghong Song wrote:
> This patch added unit tests for different types handling
> type->info.kind_flag. The following new tests are added:
>   $ test_btf
>   ...
>   BTF raw test[82] (invalid int kind_flag): OK
>   BTF raw test[83] (invalid ptr kind_flag): OK
>   BTF raw test[84] (invalid array kind_flag): OK
>   BTF raw test[85] (invalid enum kind_flag): OK
>   BTF raw test[86] (valid fwd kind_flag): OK
>   BTF raw test[87] (invalid typedef kind_flag): OK
>   BTF raw test[88] (invalid volatile kind_flag): OK
>   BTF raw test[89] (invalid const kind_flag): OK
>   BTF raw test[90] (invalid restrict kind_flag): OK
>   BTF raw test[91] (invalid func kind_flag): OK
>   BTF raw test[92] (invalid func_proto kind_flag): OK
>   BTF raw test[93] (valid struct kind_flag, bitfield_size = 0): OK
>   BTF raw test[94] (valid struct kind_flag, int member, bitfield_size != 0): OK
>   BTF raw test[95] (valid union kind_flag, int member, bitfield_size != 0): OK
>   BTF raw test[96] (valid struct kind_flag, enum member, bitfield_size != 0): OK
>   BTF raw test[97] (valid union kind_flag, enum member, bitfield_size != 0): OK
>   BTF raw test[98] (valid struct kind_flag, typedef member, bitfield_size != 0): OK
>   BTF raw test[99] (valid union kind_flag, typedef member, bitfield_size != 0): OK
>   BTF raw test[100] (invalid struct type, bitfield_size greater than struct size): OK
>   BTF raw test[101] (invalid struct type, kind_flag bitfield base_type int not regular): OK
>   BTF raw test[102] (invalid struct type, kind_flag base_type int not regular): OK
>   BTF raw test[103] (invalid union type, bitfield_size greater than struct size): OK
Would it be useful to add some
"struct kind_flag, (int|enum) member, bitfield_size == 0, wrong byte alignment"
tests to catch the "!nr_bits && BITS_PER_BYTE_MASKED(struct_bits_off)"
in patch 2.  The extra tests could be a follow up though.

Or the above tests have covered that already?

>   ...
>   PASS:122 SKIP:0 FAIL:0
> 
> The second parameter name of macro
>   BTF_INFO_ENC(kind, root, vlen)
> in selftests test_btf.c is also renamed from "root" to "kind_flag".
> Note that before this patch "root" is not used and always 0.
For the tests:

Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>