netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next] selftests/bpf: remove logic duplication in 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAEf4Bzb1kE_jCbyye07-pVMT=914_Nrdh+R=QXA2qMssYP5brA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 11 Jul 2019 07:43:28 -0700
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To:     Krzesimir Nowak <krzesimir@...volk.io>
Cc:     Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>, Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] selftests/bpf: remove logic duplication in test_verifier.c

On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 5:13 AM Krzesimir Nowak <krzesimir@...volk.io> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 3:08 AM Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com> wrote:
> >
> > test_verifier tests can specify single- and multi-runs tests. Internally
> > logic of handling them is duplicated. Get rid of it by making single run
> > retval specification to be a first retvals spec.
> >
> > Cc: Krzesimir Nowak <krzesimir@...volk.io>
> > Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>
>
> Looks good, one nit below.
>
> Acked-by: Krzesimir Nowak <krzesimir@...volk.io>
>
> > ---
> >  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 37 ++++++++++-----------
> >  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> > index b0773291012a..120ecdf4a7db 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> > @@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ struct bpf_test {
> >         int fixup_sk_storage_map[MAX_FIXUPS];
> >         const char *errstr;
> >         const char *errstr_unpriv;
> > -       uint32_t retval, retval_unpriv, insn_processed;
> > +       uint32_t insn_processed;
> >         int prog_len;
> >         enum {
> >                 UNDEF,
> > @@ -95,16 +95,24 @@ struct bpf_test {
> >         } result, result_unpriv;
> >         enum bpf_prog_type prog_type;
> >         uint8_t flags;
> > -       __u8 data[TEST_DATA_LEN];
> >         void (*fill_helper)(struct bpf_test *self);
> >         uint8_t runs;
> > -       struct {
> > -               uint32_t retval, retval_unpriv;
> > -               union {
> > -                       __u8 data[TEST_DATA_LEN];
> > -                       __u64 data64[TEST_DATA_LEN / 8];
> > +       union {
> > +               struct {
>
> Maybe consider moving the struct definition outside to further the
> removal of the duplication?

Can't do that because then retval/retval_unpriv/data won't be
accessible as a normal field of struct bpf_test. It has to be in
anonymous structs/unions, unfortunately.

I tried the following, but that also didn't work:

union {
    struct bpf_test_retval {
        uint32_t retval, retval_unpriv;
        union {
            __u8 data[TEST_DATA_LEN];
            __u64 data64[TEST_DATA_LEN / 8];
        };
    };
    struct bpf_test_retval retvals[MAX_TEST_RUNS];
};

This also made retval/retval_unpriv to not behave as normal fields of
struct bpf_test.


>
> > +                       uint32_t retval, retval_unpriv;
> > +                       union {
> > +                               __u8 data[TEST_DATA_LEN];
> > +                               __u64 data64[TEST_DATA_LEN / 8];
> > +                       };
> >                 };
> > -       } retvals[MAX_TEST_RUNS];
> > +               struct {
> > +                       uint32_t retval, retval_unpriv;
> > +                       union {
> > +                               __u8 data[TEST_DATA_LEN];
> > +                               __u64 data64[TEST_DATA_LEN / 8];
> > +                       };
> > +               } retvals[MAX_TEST_RUNS];
> > +       };
> >         enum bpf_attach_type expected_attach_type;
> >  };
> >
> > @@ -949,17 +957,8 @@ static void do_test_single(struct bpf_test *test, bool unpriv,
> >                 uint32_t expected_val;
> >                 int i;
> >
> > -               if (!test->runs) {
> > -                       expected_val = unpriv && test->retval_unpriv ?
> > -                               test->retval_unpriv : test->retval;
> > -
> > -                       err = do_prog_test_run(fd_prog, unpriv, expected_val,
> > -                                              test->data, sizeof(test->data));
> > -                       if (err)
> > -                               run_errs++;
> > -                       else
> > -                               run_successes++;
> > -               }
> > +               if (!test->runs)
> > +                       test->runs = 1;
> >
> >                 for (i = 0; i < test->runs; i++) {
> >                         if (unpriv && test->retvals[i].retval_unpriv)
> > --
> > 2.17.1
> >
>
>
> --
> Kinvolk GmbH | Adalbertstr.6a, 10999 Berlin | tel: +491755589364
> Geschäftsführer/Directors: Alban Crequy, Chris Kühl, Iago López Galeiras
> Registergericht/Court of registration: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg
> Registernummer/Registration number: HRB 171414 B
> Ust-ID-Nummer/VAT ID number: DE302207000