| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <765d949b-f19d-bac6-ca60-75237ff1989e@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2021 19:08:46 +0800
From: Hou Tao <houtao1@...wei.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
CC: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 5/5] selftests/bpf: test return value handling
for struct_ops prog
Hi,
On 9/29/2021 7:19 AM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 7:38 PM Hou Tao <houtao1@...wei.com> wrote:
>> Running a BPF_PROG_TYPE_STRUCT_OPS prog for dummy_st_ops::init()
>> through bpf_prog_test_run(). Three test cases are added:
>> (1) attach dummy_st_ops should fail
>> (2) function return value of bpf_dummy_ops::init() is expected
>> (3) pointer argument of bpf_dummy_ops::init() works as expected
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <houtao1@...wei.com>
>> ---
>> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/dummy_st_ops.c | 81 +++++++++++++++++++
>> .../selftests/bpf/progs/dummy_st_ops.c | 33 ++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 114 insertions(+)
>> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/dummy_st_ops.c
>> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/dummy_st_ops.c
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/dummy_st_ops.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/dummy_st_ops.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..4b1b52b847e6
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/dummy_st_ops.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>> +/* Copyright (C) 2021. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd */
>> +#include <test_progs.h>
>> +#include "dummy_st_ops.skel.h"
>> +
>> +/* Need to keep consistent with definitions in include/linux/bpf_dummy_ops.h */
>> +struct bpf_dummy_ops_state {
>> + int val;
>> +};
>> +
>> +static void test_dummy_st_ops_attach(void)
>> +{
>> + struct dummy_st_ops *skel;
>> + struct bpf_link *link;
>> +
>> + skel = dummy_st_ops__open_and_load();
>> + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "dummy_st_ops_load"))
>> + goto out;
> no need for __destroy() as we haven't created skeleton, so this could
> be just a return
Will do.
>> +
>> + link = bpf_map__attach_struct_ops(skel->maps.dummy_1);
>> + if (!ASSERT_EQ(libbpf_get_error(link), -EOPNOTSUPP,
>> + "dummy_st_ops_attach"))
>> + goto out;
> nit: unless you expect to add something here soon, probably doing
> ASSERT_EQ() and let it fall through to out: and destroy would be a bit
> more readable
Make sense. Will do.
>
>> +out:
>> + dummy_st_ops__destroy(skel);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void test_dummy_init_ret_value(void)
>> +{
>> + struct dummy_st_ops *skel;
>> + int err, fd;
>> + __u32 duration = 0, retval = 0;
>> +
>> + skel = dummy_st_ops__open_and_load();
>> + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "dummy_st_ops_load"))
>> + goto out;
> same, just return is fine and no need for out: label
OK. Will do in v2.
>> +
>> + fd = bpf_program__fd(skel->progs.init_1);
>> + err = bpf_prog_test_run(fd, 1, NULL, 0,
>> + NULL, NULL, &retval, &duration);
>> + ASSERT_OK(err, "test_run");
>> + ASSERT_EQ(retval, 0xf2f3f4f5, "test_ret");
>> +out:
>> + dummy_st_ops__destroy(skel);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void test_dummy_init_ptr_arg(void)
>> +{
>> + struct dummy_st_ops *skel;
>> + int err, fd;
>> + __u32 duration = 0, retval = 0;
>> + struct bpf_dummy_ops_state in_state, out_state;
>> + __u32 state_size;
>> +
>> + skel = dummy_st_ops__open_and_load();
>> + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "dummy_st_ops_load"))
>> + goto out;
> here as well
OK. Will do.
>
>> +
>> + fd = bpf_program__fd(skel->progs.init_1);
>> + memset(&in_state, 0, sizeof(in_state));
>> + in_state.val = 0xbeef;
>> + memset(&out_state, 0, sizeof(out_state));
>> + err = bpf_prog_test_run(fd, 1, &in_state, sizeof(in_state),
>> + &out_state, &state_size, &retval, &duration);
>> + ASSERT_OK(err, "test_run");
>> + ASSERT_EQ(state_size, sizeof(out_state), "test_data_out");
>> + ASSERT_EQ(out_state.val, 0x5a, "test_ptr_ret");
>> + ASSERT_EQ(retval, in_state.val, "test_ret");
>> +out:
>> + dummy_st_ops__destroy(skel);
>> +}
>> +
>> +void test_dummy_st_ops(void)
>> +{
>> + if (test__start_subtest("dummy_st_ops_attach"))
>> + test_dummy_st_ops_attach();
>> + if (test__start_subtest("dummy_init_ret_value"))
>> + test_dummy_init_ret_value();
>> + if (test__start_subtest("dummy_init_ptr_arg"))
>> + test_dummy_init_ptr_arg();
>> +}
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/dummy_st_ops.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/dummy_st_ops.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..133c328f082a
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/dummy_st_ops.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>> +/* Copyright (C) 2021. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd */
>> +#include <linux/bpf.h>
>> +#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
>> +#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
>> +
>> +struct bpf_dummy_ops_state {
>> + int val;
>> +} __attribute__((preserve_access_index));
>> +
>> +struct bpf_dummy_ops {
>> + int (*init)(struct bpf_dummy_ops_state *state);
>> +};
>> +
>> +char _liencse[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
> typo: _license (but it doesn't matter to libbpf, it looks at the
> section name only
Will fix.
>
>> +
>> +SEC("struct_ops/init_1")
>> +int BPF_PROG(init_1, struct bpf_dummy_ops_state *state)
>> +{
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + if (!state)
>> + return 0xf2f3f4f5;
>> +
>> + ret = state->val;
>> + state->val = 0x5a;
>> + return ret;
>> +}
>> +
>> +SEC(".struct_ops")
>> +struct bpf_dummy_ops dummy_1 = {
>> + .init = (void *)init_1,
>> +};
>> --
>> 2.29.2
>>
> .
Powered by blists - more mailing lists