netdev - [PATCH bpf-next v3 4/4] selftests/bpf: Test updating flow

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]

Date:   Thu, 25 Jun 2020 16:13:57 +0200
From:   Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>
To:     bpf@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...udflare.com
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v3 4/4] selftests/bpf: Test updating flow_dissector link with same program

This case, while not particularly useful, is worth covering because we
expect the operation to succeed as opposed when re-attaching the same
program directly with PROG_ATTACH.

While at it, update the tests summary that fell out of sync when tests
extended to cover links.

Signed-off-by: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>
---
 .../bpf/prog_tests/flow_dissector_reattach.c  | 32 ++++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/flow_dissector_reattach.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/flow_dissector_reattach.c
index 15cb554a66d8..a2db3b0f84db 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/flow_dissector_reattach.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/flow_dissector_reattach.c
@@ -1,9 +1,6 @@
 // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
 /*
- * Test that the flow_dissector program can be updated with a single
- * syscall by attaching a new program that replaces the existing one.
- *
- * Corner case - the same program cannot be attached twice.
+ * Tests for attaching, detaching, and replacing flow_dissector BPF program.
  */
 
 #define _GNU_SOURCE
@@ -308,6 +305,31 @@ static void test_link_update_replace_old_prog(int netns, int prog1, int prog2)
 	CHECK_FAIL(prog_is_attached(netns));
 }
 
+static void test_link_update_same_prog(int netns, int prog1, int prog2)
+{
+	DECLARE_LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_link_create_opts, create_opts);
+	DECLARE_LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_link_update_opts, update_opts);
+	int err, link;
+
+	link = bpf_link_create(prog1, netns, BPF_FLOW_DISSECTOR, &create_opts);
+	if (CHECK_FAIL(link < 0)) {
+		perror("bpf_link_create(prog1)");
+		return;
+	}
+	CHECK_FAIL(query_attached_prog_id(netns) != query_prog_id(prog1));
+
+	/* Expect success updating the prog with the same one */
+	update_opts.flags = 0;
+	update_opts.old_prog_fd = 0;
+	err = bpf_link_update(link, prog1, &update_opts);
+	if (CHECK_FAIL(err))
+		perror("bpf_link_update");
+	CHECK_FAIL(query_attached_prog_id(netns) != query_prog_id(prog1));
+
+	close(link);
+	CHECK_FAIL(prog_is_attached(netns));
+}
+
 static void test_link_update_invalid_opts(int netns, int prog1, int prog2)
 {
 	DECLARE_LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_link_create_opts, create_opts);
@@ -571,6 +593,8 @@ static void run_tests(int netns)
 		  test_link_update_no_old_prog },
 		{ "link update with replace old prog",
 		  test_link_update_replace_old_prog },
+		{ "link update with same prog",
+		  test_link_update_same_prog },
 		{ "link update invalid opts",
 		  test_link_update_invalid_opts },
 		{ "link update invalid prog",
-- 
2.25.4