netdev - Re: [PATCH v8 bpf-next 13/13] selftests/bpf: Add set test to resolve

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:   Tue, 28 Jul 2020 12:56:02 -0700
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        David Miller <davem@...hat.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Wenbo Zhang <ethercflow@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
        Brendan Gregg <bgregg@...flix.com>,
        Florent Revest <revest@...omium.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 bpf-next 13/13] selftests/bpf: Add set test to resolve_btfids

On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 2:15 PM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Adding test to for sets resolve_btfids. We're checking that
> testing set gets properly resolved and sorted.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
> ---
>  .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/resolve_btfids.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 33 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/resolve_btfids.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/resolve_btfids.c
> index 101785b49f7e..cc90aa244285 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/resolve_btfids.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/resolve_btfids.c
> @@ -48,6 +48,15 @@ BTF_ID(struct,  S)
>  BTF_ID(union,   U)
>  BTF_ID(func,    func)
>
> +BTF_SET_START(test_set)
> +BTF_ID(typedef, S)
> +BTF_ID(typedef, T)
> +BTF_ID(typedef, U)
> +BTF_ID(struct,  S)
> +BTF_ID(union,   U)
> +BTF_ID(func,    func)
> +BTF_SET_END(test_set)
> +
>  static int
>  __resolve_symbol(struct btf *btf, int type_id)
>  {
> @@ -126,5 +135,29 @@ int test_resolve_btfids(void)
>                 }
>         }
>
> +       /* Check BTF_SET_START(test_set) IDs */
> +       for (i = 0; i < test_set.cnt && !ret; i++) {

nit: usual we just do `goto err_out;` instead of complicating exit
condition in a for loop

> +               bool found = false;
> +
> +               for (j = 0; j < ARRAY_SIZE(test_symbols); j++) {
> +                       if (test_symbols[j].id != test_set.ids[i])
> +                               continue;
> +                       found = true;
> +                       break;
> +               }
> +
> +               ret = CHECK(!found, "id_check",
> +                           "ID %d for %s not found in test_symbols\n",
> +                           test_symbols[j].id, test_symbols[j].name);

j == ARRAY_SIZE(test_symbols), you probably meant to get
test_set.ids[i] instead of test_symbol name/id?

> +               if (ret)
> +                       break;
> +
> +               if (i > 0) {
> +                       ret = CHECK(test_set.ids[i - 1] > test_set.ids[i],

nit: >= would be the invalid condition

> +                                   "sort_check",
> +                                   "test_set is not sorted\n");
> +               }
> +       }
> +
>         return ret;
>  }
> --
> 2.25.4
>