| 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: <7df54ca3-1bae-4d54-e30f-c2474c48ede0@fb.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2021 14:03:54 -0800
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
CC: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <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>, <andrii@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 3/3] selftests/bpf: Add tests for
get_func_[arg|ret|arg_cnt] helpers
On 12/4/21 6:07 AM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> Adding tests for get_func_[arg|ret|arg_cnt] helpers.
> Using these helpers in fentry/fexit/fmod_ret programs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
> ---
> .../bpf/prog_tests/get_func_args_test.c | 38 ++++++
> .../selftests/bpf/progs/get_func_args_test.c | 112 ++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 150 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/get_func_args_test.c
> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/get_func_args_test.c
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/get_func_args_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/get_func_args_test.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..c24807ae4361
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/get_func_args_test.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +#include <test_progs.h>
> +#include "get_func_args_test.skel.h"
> +
> +void test_get_func_args_test(void)
> +{
> + struct get_func_args_test *skel = NULL;
> + __u32 duration = 0, retval;
> + int err, prog_fd;
> +
> + skel = get_func_args_test__open_and_load();
> + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "get_func_args_test__open_and_load"))
> + return;
> +
> + err = get_func_args_test__attach(skel);
> + if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "get_func_args_test__attach"))
> + goto cleanup;
> +
> + prog_fd = bpf_program__fd(skel->progs.test1);
> + err = bpf_prog_test_run(prog_fd, 1, NULL, 0,
> + NULL, NULL, &retval, &duration);
> + ASSERT_OK(err, "test_run");
> + ASSERT_EQ(retval, 0, "test_run");
> +
> + prog_fd = bpf_program__fd(skel->progs.fmod_ret_test);
> + err = bpf_prog_test_run(prog_fd, 1, NULL, 0,
> + NULL, NULL, &retval, &duration);
> + ASSERT_OK(err, "test_run");
> + ASSERT_EQ(retval, 1234, "test_run");
are the other two programs executed implicitly during one of those test
runs? Can you please leave a small comment somewhere here if that's true?
> +
> + ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->test1_result, 1, "test1_result");
> + ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->test2_result, 1, "test2_result");
> + ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->test3_result, 1, "test3_result");
> + ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->test4_result, 1, "test4_result");
> +
> +cleanup:
> + get_func_args_test__destroy(skel);
> +}
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/get_func_args_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/get_func_args_test.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..0d0a67c849ae
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/get_func_args_test.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,112 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +#include <linux/bpf.h>
> +#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
> +#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
> +#include <errno.h>
> +
> +char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
> +
> +__u64 test1_result = 0;
> +SEC("fentry/bpf_fentry_test1")
> +int BPF_PROG(test1)
> +{
> + __u64 cnt = bpf_get_func_arg_cnt(ctx);
> + __u64 a = 0, z = 0, ret = 0;
> + __s64 err;
> +
> + test1_result = cnt == 1;
> +
> + /* valid arguments */
> + err = bpf_get_func_arg(ctx, 0, &a);
> + test1_result &= err == 0 && (int) a == 1;
int cast unnecessary? but some ()'s wouldn't hurt...
> +
> + /* not valid argument */
> + err = bpf_get_func_arg(ctx, 1, &z);
> + test1_result &= err == -EINVAL;
> +
> + /* return value fails in fentry */
> + err = bpf_get_func_ret(ctx, &ret);
> + test1_result &= err == -EINVAL;
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +__u64 test2_result = 0;
> +SEC("fexit/bpf_fentry_test2")
> +int BPF_PROG(test2)
> +{
> + __u64 cnt = bpf_get_func_arg_cnt(ctx);
> + __u64 a = 0, b = 0, z = 0, ret = 0;
> + __s64 err;
> +
> + test2_result = cnt == 2;
> +
> + /* valid arguments */
> + err = bpf_get_func_arg(ctx, 0, &a);
> + test2_result &= err == 0 && (int) a == 2;
> +
> + err = bpf_get_func_arg(ctx, 1, &b);
> + test2_result &= err == 0 && b == 3;
> +
> + /* not valid argument */
> + err = bpf_get_func_arg(ctx, 2, &z);
> + test2_result &= err == -EINVAL;
> +
> + /* return value */
> + err = bpf_get_func_ret(ctx, &ret);
> + test2_result &= err == 0 && ret == 5;
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +__u64 test3_result = 0;
> +SEC("fmod_ret/bpf_modify_return_test")
> +int BPF_PROG(fmod_ret_test, int _a, int *_b, int _ret)
> +{
> + __u64 cnt = bpf_get_func_arg_cnt(ctx);
> + __u64 a = 0, b = 0, z = 0, ret = 0;
> + __s64 err;
> +
> + test3_result = cnt == 2;
> +
> + /* valid arguments */
> + err = bpf_get_func_arg(ctx, 0, &a);
> + test3_result &= err == 0 && (int) a == 1;
> +
> + err = bpf_get_func_arg(ctx, 1, &b);
> + test3_result &= err == 0;
why no checking of b value here?
> +
> + /* not valid argument */
> + err = bpf_get_func_arg(ctx, 2, &z);
> + test3_result &= err == -EINVAL;
> +
> + /* return value */
> + err = bpf_get_func_ret(ctx, &ret);
> + test3_result &= err == 0 && ret == 0;
> + return 1234;
> +}
> +
> +__u64 test4_result = 0;
> +SEC("fexit/bpf_modify_return_test")
> +int BPF_PROG(fexit_test, int _a, __u64 _b, int _ret)
> +{
> + __u64 cnt = bpf_get_func_arg_cnt(ctx);
> + __u64 a = 0, b = 0, z = 0, ret = 0;
> + __s64 err;
> +
> + test4_result = cnt == 2;
> +
> + /* valid arguments */
> + err = bpf_get_func_arg(ctx, 0, &a);
> + test4_result &= err == 0 && (int) a == 1;
> +
> + err = bpf_get_func_arg(ctx, 1, &b);
> + test4_result &= err == 0;
same, for consistency, b should have been checked, no?
> +
> + /* not valid argument */
> + err = bpf_get_func_arg(ctx, 2, &z);
> + test4_result &= err == -EINVAL;
> +
> + /* return value */
> + err = bpf_get_func_ret(ctx, &ret);
> + test4_result &= err == 0 && ret == 1234;
> + return 0;
> +}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists