netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 bpf-next 6/7] selftests/bpf: Migrate prog_tests/trace

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:   Mon, 30 Aug 2021 17:03:08 -0700
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To:     Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@...com>
Cc:     bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 bpf-next 6/7] selftests/bpf: Migrate
 prog_tests/trace_printk CHECKs to ASSERTs

On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 10:20 PM Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@...com> wrote:
>
> Guidance for new tests is to use ASSERT macros instead of CHECK. Since
> trace_vprintk test will borrow heavily from trace_printk's, migrate its
> CHECKs so it remains obvious that the two are closely related.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@...com>
> ---

Great, thanks!

Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>

>  .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/trace_printk.c   | 24 +++++++------------
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/trace_printk.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/trace_printk.c
> index d39bc00feb45..e47835f0a674 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/trace_printk.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/trace_printk.c
> @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
>
>  void test_trace_printk(void)
>  {
> -       int err, iter = 0, duration = 0, found = 0;
> +       int err = 0, iter = 0, found = 0;
>         struct trace_printk__bss *bss;
>         struct trace_printk *skel;
>         char *buf = NULL;
> @@ -18,25 +18,24 @@ void test_trace_printk(void)
>         size_t buflen;
>
>         skel = trace_printk__open();
> -       if (CHECK(!skel, "skel_open", "failed to open skeleton\n"))
> +       if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "trace_printk__open"))
>                 return;
>
> -       ASSERT_EQ(skel->rodata->fmt[0], 'T', "invalid printk fmt string");
> +       ASSERT_EQ(skel->rodata->fmt[0], 'T', "skel->rodata->fmt[0]");
>         skel->rodata->fmt[0] = 't';
>
>         err = trace_printk__load(skel);
> -       if (CHECK(err, "skel_load", "failed to load skeleton: %d\n", err))
> +       if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "trace_printk__load"))
>                 goto cleanup;
>
>         bss = skel->bss;
>
>         err = trace_printk__attach(skel);
> -       if (CHECK(err, "skel_attach", "skeleton attach failed: %d\n", err))
> +       if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "trace_printk__attach"))
>                 goto cleanup;
>
>         fp = fopen(TRACEBUF, "r");
> -       if (CHECK(fp == NULL, "could not open trace buffer",
> -                 "error %d opening %s", errno, TRACEBUF))
> +       if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(fp, "fopen(TRACEBUF)"))
>                 goto cleanup;
>
>         /* We do not want to wait forever if this test fails... */
> @@ -46,14 +45,10 @@ void test_trace_printk(void)
>         usleep(1);
>         trace_printk__detach(skel);
>
> -       if (CHECK(bss->trace_printk_ran == 0,
> -                 "bpf_trace_printk never ran",
> -                 "ran == %d", bss->trace_printk_ran))
> +       if (!ASSERT_GT(bss->trace_printk_ran, 0, "bss->trace_printk_ran"))
>                 goto cleanup;
>
> -       if (CHECK(bss->trace_printk_ret <= 0,
> -                 "bpf_trace_printk returned <= 0 value",
> -                 "got %d", bss->trace_printk_ret))
> +       if (!ASSERT_GT(bss->trace_printk_ret, 0, "bss->trace_printk_ret"))
>                 goto cleanup;
>
>         /* verify our search string is in the trace buffer */
> @@ -66,8 +61,7 @@ void test_trace_printk(void)
>                         break;
>         }
>
> -       if (CHECK(!found, "message from bpf_trace_printk not found",
> -                 "no instance of %s in %s", SEARCHMSG, TRACEBUF))
> +       if (!ASSERT_EQ(found, bss->trace_printk_ran, "found"))
>                 goto cleanup;
>
>  cleanup:
> --
> 2.30.2
>