[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YzqHmHRjxAc4Nndc@samus.usersys.redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2022 08:56:24 +0200
From: Artem Savkov <asavkov@...hat.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
jbenc@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] selftests/bpf: make libbpf_probe_prog_types
testcase aware of kernel configuration
On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 04:06:41PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 4:09 AM Artem Savkov <asavkov@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > At the moment libbpf_probe_prog_types test iterates over all available
> > BPF_PROG_TYPE regardless of kernel configuration which can exclude some
> > of those. Unfortunately there is no direct way to tell which types are
> > available, but we can look at struct bpf_ctx_onvert to tell which ones
> > are available.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Artem Savkov <asavkov@...hat.com>
> > ---
>
> Many selftests assume correct kernel configuration which is encoded in
> config and config.<arch> files. So it seems fair to assume that all
> defined program types are available on kernel-under-test.
Ok. Wasn't sure if this is the assumption being made.
> If someone is running selftests under custom more minimal kernel they
> can use denylist to ignore specific prog type subtests?
Thanks for the suggestion. Denylist is a bit too broad in this case as
it means we'll be disabling the whole libbpf_probe_prog_types test while
only a single type is a problem. Looks like we'll have to live with a
downstream-only patch in this case.
--
Artem
Powered by blists - more mailing lists