netdev - Re: [net 1/2] selftests/net: fix opening object file failed

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]

Date:   Tue, 18 Oct 2022 17:50:19 +0800
From:   wangyufen <wangyufen@...wei.com>
To:     Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
        Lina Wang <lina.wang@...iatek.com>
CC:     <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
        <edumazet@...gle.com>, <kuba@...nel.org>, <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        <deso@...teo.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [net 1/2] selftests/net: fix opening object file failed


在 2022/10/18 10:57, wangyufen 写道:
>
> 在 2022/10/13 9:51, Martin KaFai Lau 写道:
>> On 10/11/22 2:57 AM, Wang Yufen wrote:
>>> The program file used in the udpgro_frglist testcase is 
>>> "../bpf/nat6to4.o",
>>> but the actual nat6to4.o file is in "bpf/" not "../bpf".
>>> The following error occurs:
>>>    Error opening object ../bpf/nat6to4.o: No such file or directory
>>
>> hmm... so it sounds like the test never works...
>>
>> The test seems like mostly exercising the tc-bpf?  It makes sense to 
>> move it to the selftests/bpf. or staying in net is also fine for now 
>> and only need to fix up the path here.
>>
>> However, if moving to selftests/bpf, I don't think it is a good idea 
>> to only move the bpf prog but not moving the actual test program (the 
>> script here) such that the bpf CI can continuously testing it.  
>> Otherwise, it will just drift and rot slowly like patch 2.
>>
>> Also, if you prefer to move it to selftests/bpf, the bpf prog cannot 
>> be moved in the current form.  eg. There is some convention on the 
>> SEC name in the selftests/bpf/progs.  Also, the testing script needs 
>> to be adapted to the selftests/bpf/test_progs infra.
>
> hmm... if moving to selftests/bpf, the actual test programs also needs 
> to move to selftests/bpf, e.g. udpgso_bench_*, in_netns.sh, 
> udpgso*.sh, which may not be a good idea.
>
> So, only fix up the path here.
>
> Also fix up the bpf/nat6to4.o compile error as following:
>
>     make -C tools/testing/selftests/net got the following err:
>     bpf/nat6to4.c:43:10: fatal error: 'bpf/bpf_helpers.h' file not found
>              ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
After revert commit 7b92aa9e61350("selftests net: fix kselftest net 
fatal error"),

make -C tools/testing/selftests got the following err:

In file included from bpf/nat6to4.c:43:
../../../lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h:11:10: fatal error: 'bpf_helper_defs.h' 
file not found
#include "bpf_helper_defs.h"
          ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"bpf_helper_defs.h"  is generated by libbpf；


So, there are two possible approaches:  the first moving nat6to4.c and 
the actual test programs to selftests/bpf;

second add make dependency on libbpf for the nat6to4.c.

Which one is better?