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: <33d17f23-03cb-9bff-2e50-06ab0f597640@linux.dev> Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2022 16:26:05 -0700 From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev> To: Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@...weicloud.com> Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@...com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>, Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@...cle.com>, Delyan Kratunov <delyank@...com>, Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 6/6] selftest/bpf: Fix error usage of ASSERT_OK in xdp_adjust_tail.c On 10/11/22 5:01 AM, Xu Kuohai wrote: > From: Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@...wei.com> > > xdp_adjust_tail.c calls ASSERT_OK() to check the return value of > bpf_prog_test_load(), but the condition is not correct. Fix it. > > Fixes: 791cad025051 ("bpf: selftests: Get rid of CHECK macro in xdp_adjust_tail.c") > Signed-off-by: Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@...wei.com> > --- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_adjust_tail.c | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_adjust_tail.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_adjust_tail.c > index 009ee37607df..39973ea1ce43 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_adjust_tail.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_adjust_tail.c > @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ static void test_xdp_adjust_tail_shrink(void) > ); > > err = bpf_prog_test_load(file, BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP, &obj, &prog_fd); > - if (ASSERT_OK(err, "test_xdp_adjust_tail_shrink")) > + if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "test_xdp_adjust_tail_shrink")) > return; > > err = bpf_prog_test_run_opts(prog_fd, &topts); > @@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ static void test_xdp_adjust_tail_grow(void) > ); > > err = bpf_prog_test_load(file, BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP, &obj, &prog_fd); > - if (ASSERT_OK(err, "test_xdp_adjust_tail_grow")) > + if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "test_xdp_adjust_tail_grow")) Ouch... ic. It is why this test has been passing. > return; > > err = bpf_prog_test_run_opts(prog_fd, &topts); > @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ static void test_xdp_adjust_tail_grow2(void) > ); > > err = bpf_prog_test_load(file, BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP, &obj, &prog_fd); > - if (ASSERT_OK(err, "test_xdp_adjust_tail_grow")) > + if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "test_xdp_adjust_tail_grow")) > return; > > /* Test case-64 */
Powered by blists - more mailing lists