[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20211020223738.r6coueqsymyt3422@apollo.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 04:07:38 +0530
From: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc: bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>,
Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 6/8] selftests/bpf: Add weak/typeless ksym
test for light skeleton
On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 03:47:19AM IST, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 12:15 PM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
> <memxor@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > Also, avoid using CO-RE features, as lskel doesn't support CO-RE, yet.
> > Include both light and libbpf skeleton in same file to test both of them
> > together.
> >
> > In c48e51c8b07a ("bpf: selftests: Add selftests for module kfunc support"),
> > I added support for generating both lskel and libbpf skel for a BPF
> > object, however the name parameter for bpftool caused collisions when
> > included in same file together. This meant that every test needed a
> > separate file for a libbpf/light skeleton separation instead of
> > subtests.
> >
> > Change that by appending a "_light" suffix to the name for files listed
> > in LSKELS_EXTRA, such that both light and libbpf skeleton can be used in
> > the same file for subtests, leading to better code sharing.
> >
> > While at it, improve the build output by saying GEN-LSKEL instead of
> > GEN-SKEL for light skeleton generation recipe.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>
> > ---
> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile | 7 ++--
> > .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ksyms_btf.c | 35 +++++++++++++++-
> > .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ksyms_module.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++--
> > .../bpf/prog_tests/ksyms_module_libbpf.c | 28 -------------
> > .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_ksyms_weak.c | 3 +-
> > 5 files changed, 74 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
> > delete mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ksyms_module_libbpf.c
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile
> > index 498222543c37..1c3c8befc249 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile
> > @@ -325,7 +325,7 @@ LINKED_SKELS := test_static_linked.skel.h linked_funcs.skel.h \
> > LSKELS := kfunc_call_test.c fentry_test.c fexit_test.c fexit_sleep.c \
> > test_ringbuf.c atomics.c trace_printk.c trace_vprintk.c
> > # Generate both light skeleton and libbpf skeleton for these
> > -LSKELS_EXTRA := test_ksyms_module.c
> > +LSKELS_EXTRA := test_ksyms_module.c test_ksyms_weak.c
> > SKEL_BLACKLIST += $$(LSKELS)
> >
> > test_static_linked.skel.h-deps := test_static_linked1.o test_static_linked2.o
> > @@ -399,12 +399,13 @@ $(TRUNNER_BPF_SKELS): %.skel.h: %.o $(BPFTOOL) | $(TRUNNER_OUTPUT)
> > $(Q)$$(BPFTOOL) gen skeleton $$(<:.o=.linked3.o) name $$(notdir $$(<:.o=)) > $$@
> >
> > $(TRUNNER_BPF_LSKELS): %.lskel.h: %.o $(BPFTOOL) | $(TRUNNER_OUTPUT)
> > - $$(call msg,GEN-SKEL,$(TRUNNER_BINARY),$$@)
> > + $$(call msg,GEN-LSKEL,$(TRUNNER_BINARY),$$@)
>
> This breaks nice output alignment:
>
> GEN-SKEL [test_progs-no_alu32] bpf_iter_tcp4.skel.h
> GEN-LSKEL [test_progs-no_alu32] trace_vprintk.lskel.h
>
Ok, I'll drop it.
> Isn't ".lskel.h" suffix enough to distinguish them?
>
> > $(Q)$$(BPFTOOL) gen object $$(<:.o=.linked1.o) $$<
> > $(Q)$$(BPFTOOL) gen object $$(<:.o=.linked2.o) $$(<:.o=.linked1.o)
> > $(Q)$$(BPFTOOL) gen object $$(<:.o=.linked3.o) $$(<:.o=.linked2.o)
> > $(Q)diff $$(<:.o=.linked2.o) $$(<:.o=.linked3.o)
> > - $(Q)$$(BPFTOOL) gen skeleton -L $$(<:.o=.linked3.o) name $$(notdir $$(<:.o=)) > $$@
> > + $$(eval LSKEL_NAME := $$(notdir $$(<:.o=$$(if $$(filter $$(notdir $$(<:.o=.c)),$(LSKELS_EXTRA)),_light,))))
>
> eval inside eval?.. Wow, do we really need that? If you just want to
I knew you'd like it ;-)
> add _light (I suggest _lskel though, it will make for a more
> meaningful and recognizable names in user-space code) suffix, do it
> for all light skeletons unconditionally and keep it simple?
>
I avoided this because it would be a lot of unecessary changes, while we only
need this for two files. Every struct/function name will get the suffix, but I
can do it if the Makefile stuff looks too horrible.
> > + $(Q)$$(BPFTOOL) gen skeleton -L $$(<:.o=.linked3.o) name $$(LSKEL_NAME) > $$@
> >
> > $(TRUNNER_BPF_SKELS_LINKED): $(TRUNNER_BPF_OBJS) $(BPFTOOL) | $(TRUNNER_OUTPUT)
> > $$(call msg,LINK-BPF,$(TRUNNER_BINARY),$$(@:.skel.h=.o))
>
> [...]
--
Kartikeya
Powered by blists - more mailing lists