netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next] selftests/bpf: move netcnt test under 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAEf4BzZBcG=CDVrMVb4i6x90MvpPDOXhkoZ3rHUpx3+FMUE6NQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 29 Jul 2021 16:08:22 -0700
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To:     Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
Cc:     Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] selftests/bpf: move netcnt test under test_progs

On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 8:14 AM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> Rewrite to skel and ASSERT macros as well while we are at it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
> ---

Thanks! Bonus points for skeleton and ASSERT_XXX! ;)

In addition to Yonghong's comments, a few more below. Missed assert()s
require a new revision, unfortunately.

>  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile          |   3 +-
>  .../testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/netcnt.c |  93 +++++++++++
>  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_netcnt.c     | 148 ------------------

Usually there is .gitignore clean up as well.

>  3 files changed, 94 insertions(+), 150 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/netcnt.c
>  delete mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_netcnt.c
>

[...]

> +
> +       skel->links.bpf_nextcnt =
> +               bpf_program__attach_cgroup(skel->progs.bpf_nextcnt, cg_fd);
> +       if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel->links.bpf_nextcnt,
> +                          "attach_cgroup(bpf_nextcnt)"))
> +               goto err;
> +
> +       if (system("which ping6 &>/dev/null") == 0)

see 4cda0c82a34b ("selftests/bpf: Use ping6 only if available in
tc_redirect"), we should probably add some system() + ping -6/ping6
wrapper into network_helpers.c and use that in at least all
test_progs' tests.

> +               assert(!system("ping6 ::1 -c 10000 -f -q > /dev/null"));
> +       else
> +               assert(!system("ping -6 ::1 -c 10000 -f -q > /dev/null"));

no assert() please

> +
> +       map_fd = bpf_map__fd(skel->maps.netcnt);
> +       if (!ASSERT_GE(map_fd, 0, "bpf_map__fd(netcnt)"))
> +               goto err;
> +
> +       percpu_map_fd = bpf_map__fd(skel->maps.percpu_netcnt);
> +       if (!ASSERT_GE(percpu_map_fd, 0, "bpf_map__fd(percpu_netcnt)"))
> +               goto err;
> +
> +       if (!ASSERT_OK(bpf_map_get_next_key(map_fd, NULL, &key),
> +                      "bpf_map_get_next_key"))

it's ok to use all 100 characters if that helps keeps simple function
invocations on the single line, so don't hesitate to do that

> +               goto err;
> +
> +       if (!ASSERT_OK(bpf_map_lookup_elem(map_fd, &key, &netcnt),
> +                      "bpf_map_lookup_elem(netcnt)"))
> +               goto err;
> +
> +       if (!ASSERT_OK(bpf_map_lookup_elem(percpu_map_fd, &key,
> +                                          &percpu_netcnt[0]),
> +                      "bpf_map_lookup_elem(percpu_netcnt)"))
> +               goto err;
> +

[...]