netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: add tests for BPF_F_PRESERVE

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 30 Sep 2020 21:20:14 +0000
From:   Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
CC:     Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>,
        "ast@...nel.org" <ast@...nel.org>,
        "daniel@...earbox.net" <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        "john.fastabend@...il.com" <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        "kpsingh@...omium.org" <kpsingh@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: add tests for
 BPF_F_PRESERVE_ELEMS



> On Sep 30, 2020, at 12:26 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 08:20:58AM -0700, Song Liu wrote:
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_pe_preserve_elems.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_pe_preserve_elems.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000000000..dc77e406de41f
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_pe_preserve_elems.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>> +// Copyright (c) 2020 Facebook
>> +#include "vmlinux.h"
> 
> Does it actually need vmlinux.h ?
> Just checking to make sure it compiles on older kernels.

We can include linux/bpf.h instead. 

[...]

>> +	long ret;
>> +
>> +	ret = bpf_perf_event_read_value(&array_2, 0, &val, sizeof(val));
>> +	bpf_printk("read_array_2 returns %ld", ret);
> 
> Please remove printk from the tests. It only spams the trace_pipe.
> 
>> +	return ret;
> 
> The return code is already checked as far as I can see.
> That's enough to pass/fail the test, right?

Yes, we can remove the bpf_printk() here. Fixing this in v4.

Thanks,
Song