netdev - Re: [PATCH 16/19] selftests/bpf: Add fentry multi func 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: <YMDQOIhRh9tDy1Tg@krava>
Date:   Wed, 9 Jun 2021 16:29:12 +0200
From:   Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
        "Steven Rostedt (VMware)" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>, Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>,
        Viktor Malik <vmalik@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/19] selftests/bpf: Add fentry multi func test

On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 10:40:24PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 5, 2021 at 4:12 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Adding selftest for fentry multi func test that attaches
> > to bpf_fentry_test* functions and checks argument values
> > based on the processed function.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
> > ---
> >  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/multi_check.h     | 52 +++++++++++++++++++
> >  .../bpf/prog_tests/fentry_multi_test.c        | 43 +++++++++++++++
> >  .../selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_multi_test.c   | 18 +++++++
> >  3 files changed, 113 insertions(+)
> >  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/multi_check.h
> >  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fentry_multi_test.c
> >  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_multi_test.c
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/multi_check.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/multi_check.h
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..36c2a93f9be3
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/multi_check.h
> 
> we have a proper static linking now, we don't have to use header
> inclusion hacks, let's do this properly?

ok, will change

> 
> > @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
> > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> > +
> > +#ifndef __MULTI_CHECK_H
> > +#define __MULTI_CHECK_H
> > +
> > +extern unsigned long long bpf_fentry_test[8];
> > +
> > +static __attribute__((unused)) inline
> > +void multi_arg_check(unsigned long ip, __u64 a, __u64 b, __u64 c, __u64 d, __u64 e, __u64 f, __u64 *test_result)
> > +{
> > +       if (ip == bpf_fentry_test[0]) {
> > +               *test_result += (int) a == 1;
> > +       } else if (ip == bpf_fentry_test[1]) {
> > +               *test_result += (int) a == 2 && (__u64) b == 3;
> > +       } else if (ip == bpf_fentry_test[2]) {
> > +               *test_result += (char) a == 4 && (int) b == 5 && (__u64) c == 6;
> > +       } else if (ip == bpf_fentry_test[3]) {
> > +               *test_result += (void *) a == (void *) 7 && (char) b == 8 && (int) c == 9 && (__u64) d == 10;
> > +       } else if (ip == bpf_fentry_test[4]) {
> > +               *test_result += (__u64) a == 11 && (void *) b == (void *) 12 && (short) c == 13 && (int) d == 14 && (__u64) e == 15;
> > +       } else if (ip == bpf_fentry_test[5]) {
> > +               *test_result += (__u64) a == 16 && (void *) b == (void *) 17 && (short) c == 18 && (int) d == 19 && (void *) e == (void *) 20 && (__u64) f == 21;
> > +       } else if (ip == bpf_fentry_test[6]) {
> > +               *test_result += 1;
> > +       } else if (ip == bpf_fentry_test[7]) {
> > +               *test_result += 1;
> > +       }
> 
> why not use switch? and why the casting?

hum, for switch I'd need constants right? 

casting is extra ;-) wanted to check the actual argument types,
but probably makes no sense

will check

> 
> > +}
> > +
> 
> [...]
> 
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_multi_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_multi_test.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..a443fc958e5a
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_multi_test.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > +#include <linux/bpf.h>
> > +#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
> > +#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
> > +#include "multi_check.h"
> > +
> > +char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
> > +
> > +unsigned long long bpf_fentry_test[8];
> > +
> > +__u64 test_result = 0;
> > +
> > +SEC("fentry.multi/bpf_fentry_test*")
> 
> wait, that's a regexp syntax that libc supports?.. Not .*? We should
> definitely not provide btf__find_by_pattern_kind() API, I'd like to
> avoid explaining what flavors of regexps libbpf supports.

ok

thanks,
jirka