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: <cda0bc3d-9587-6b5e-e676-4e3bd11e95da@huawei.com> Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2022 09:36:52 +0800 From: Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@...wei.com> To: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, 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 10/13/2022 7:26 AM, Martin KaFai Lau wrote: > 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. > Well, it's because the value of err is zero, so ASSERT_OK passed. > >> 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