netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 10/10] bpf, selftests: Add various BPF tc link selftests

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]

Message-ID: <CAEf4Bzapj27OtLZPo9Gd8F0LWj+VKiXfRwPhN0uWip+WxhyyVA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 5 Oct 2022 20:19:49 -0700
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc:     bpf@...r.kernel.org, razor@...ckwall.org, ast@...nel.org,
        andrii@...nel.org, martin.lau@...ux.dev, john.fastabend@...il.com,
        joannelkoong@...il.com, memxor@...il.com, toke@...hat.com,
        joe@...ium.io, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 10/10] bpf, selftests: Add various BPF tc link selftests

On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 4:12 PM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote:
>
> Add a big batch of selftest to extend test_progs with various tc link,
> attach ops and old-style tc BPF attachments via libbpf APIs. Also test
> multi-program attachments including mixing the various attach options:
>
>   # ./test_progs -t tc_link
>   #179     tc_link_base:OK
>   #180     tc_link_detach:OK
>   #181     tc_link_mix:OK
>   #182     tc_link_opts:OK
>   #183     tc_link_run_base:OK
>   #184     tc_link_run_chain:OK
>   Summary: 6/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
>
> All new and existing test cases pass.
>
> Co-developed-by: Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>
> Signed-off-by: Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
> ---

Few small things.

First, please make sure to not use CHECK and CHECK_FAIL.

Second, it's kind of sad that we need to still check
ENABLE_ATOMICS_TESTS guards. I'd either not do that at all, or I
wonder if it's cleaner to do it in one header and just re-#define
__sync_fetch_and_xxx to be no-ops. This will make compilation not
break. And then tests will just be failing at runtime, which is fine,
because they can be denylisted. WDYT?

>  .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tc_link.c        | 756 ++++++++++++++++++
>  .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_tc_link.c        |  43 +
>  2 files changed, 799 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tc_link.c
>  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_tc_link.c
>

[...]