[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
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