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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 20:44:45 -0700 From: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com> To: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, <ast@...nel.org> CC: <john.fastabend@...il.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <bpf@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 4/6] bpf, selftests: add test for different array inner map size On 10/8/20 2:31 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > Extend the "diff_size" subtest to also include a non-inlined array map variant > where dynamic inner #elems are possible. > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> Ack with a minor comment below. Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com> > --- > .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_map_in_map.c | 39 ++++++++++++----- > .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_btf_map_in_map.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 72 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_map_in_map.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_map_in_map.c > index 540fea4c91a5..e478bdec73b8 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_map_in_map.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_map_in_map.c > @@ -55,10 +55,10 @@ static int kern_sync_rcu(void) > > static void test_lookup_update(void) > { > - int err, key = 0, val, i; > + int map1_fd, map2_fd, map3_fd, map4_fd, map5_fd, map1_id, map2_id; > + int outer_arr_fd, outer_hash_fd, outer_arr_dyn_fd; > struct test_btf_map_in_map *skel; > - int outer_arr_fd, outer_hash_fd; > - int fd, map1_fd, map2_fd, map1_id, map2_id; > + int err, key = 0, val, i, fd; > > skel = test_btf_map_in_map__open_and_load(); > if (CHECK(!skel, "skel_open", "failed to open&load skeleton\n")) > @@ -70,32 +70,45 @@ static void test_lookup_update(void) > > map1_fd = bpf_map__fd(skel->maps.inner_map1); > map2_fd = bpf_map__fd(skel->maps.inner_map2); > + map3_fd = bpf_map__fd(skel->maps.inner_map3); > + map4_fd = bpf_map__fd(skel->maps.inner_map4); > + map5_fd = bpf_map__fd(skel->maps.inner_map5); > + outer_arr_dyn_fd = bpf_map__fd(skel->maps.outer_arr_dyn); > outer_arr_fd = bpf_map__fd(skel->maps.outer_arr); > outer_hash_fd = bpf_map__fd(skel->maps.outer_hash); > > - /* inner1 = input, inner2 = input + 1 */ > - map1_fd = bpf_map__fd(skel->maps.inner_map1); > + /* inner1 = input, inner2 = input + 1, inner3 = input + 2 */ > bpf_map_update_elem(outer_arr_fd, &key, &map1_fd, 0); > - map2_fd = bpf_map__fd(skel->maps.inner_map2); > bpf_map_update_elem(outer_hash_fd, &key, &map2_fd, 0); > + bpf_map_update_elem(outer_arr_dyn_fd, &key, &map3_fd, 0); > skel->bss->input = 1; > usleep(1); > - > bpf_map_lookup_elem(map1_fd, &key, &val); > CHECK(val != 1, "inner1", "got %d != exp %d\n", val, 1); > bpf_map_lookup_elem(map2_fd, &key, &val); > CHECK(val != 2, "inner2", "got %d != exp %d\n", val, 2); > + bpf_map_lookup_elem(map3_fd, &key, &val); > + CHECK(val != 3, "inner3", "got %d != exp %d\n", val, 3); > > - /* inner1 = input + 1, inner2 = input */ > + /* inner1 = input, inner2 = input + 1, inner4 = input + 2 */ The changed comments sound not right. > bpf_map_update_elem(outer_arr_fd, &key, &map2_fd, 0); > bpf_map_update_elem(outer_hash_fd, &key, &map1_fd, 0); > + bpf_map_update_elem(outer_arr_dyn_fd, &key, &map4_fd, 0); > skel->bss->input = 3; > usleep(1); > - > bpf_map_lookup_elem(map1_fd, &key, &val); > CHECK(val != 4, "inner1", "got %d != exp %d\n", val, 4); We have inner1 = input + 1 here. > bpf_map_lookup_elem(map2_fd, &key, &val); > CHECK(val != 3, "inner2", "got %d != exp %d\n", val, 3); inner2 = input here. > + bpf_map_lookup_elem(map4_fd, &key, &val); > + CHECK(val != 5, "inner4", "got %d != exp %d\n", val, 5); > + [...]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists