netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 5/5] selftests/bpf: add testcase for FENTRY/FEXIT with 6+ arguments

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: <CAADnVQLPhhEjp6HfsQhaEdp269MZGs2jBkPtkeBe8i0r-MWnYA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2023 11:32:33 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@...il.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, 
	David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, 
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, 
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, 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>, 
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, 
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, 
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, 
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@...com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, 
	benbjiang@...cent.com, Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@...ux.ibm.com>, 
	Menglong Dong <imagedong@...cent.com>, Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@...wei.com>, 
	Manu Bretelle <chantr4@...il.com>, Ross Zwisler <zwisler@...gle.com>, Eddy Z <eddyz87@...il.com>, 
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, 
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 5/5] selftests/bpf: add testcase for
 FENTRY/FEXIT with 6+ arguments

On Fri, Jun 2, 2023 at 12:03 AM <menglong8.dong@...il.com> wrote:
>
> From: Menglong Dong <imagedong@...cent.com>
>
> Add test7/test12/test14 in fexit_test.c and fentry_test.c to test the
> fentry and fexit whose target function have 7/12/14 arguments.
>
> And the testcases passed:
>
> ./test_progs -t fexit
> $71      fentry_fexit:OK
> $73/1    fexit_bpf2bpf/target_no_callees:OK
> $73/2    fexit_bpf2bpf/target_yes_callees:OK
> $73/3    fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace:OK
> $73/4    fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace_verify:OK
> $73/5    fexit_bpf2bpf/func_sockmap_update:OK
> $73/6    fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace_return_code:OK
> $73/7    fexit_bpf2bpf/func_map_prog_compatibility:OK
> $73/8    fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace_multi:OK
> $73/9    fexit_bpf2bpf/fmod_ret_freplace:OK
> $73/10   fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace_global_func:OK
> $73/11   fexit_bpf2bpf/fentry_to_cgroup_bpf:OK
> $73/12   fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace_progmap:OK
> $73      fexit_bpf2bpf:OK
> $74      fexit_sleep:OK
> $75      fexit_stress:OK
> $76      fexit_test:OK
> Summary: 5/12 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
>
> ./test_progs -t fentry
> $71      fentry_fexit:OK
> $72      fentry_test:OK
> $140     module_fentry_shadow:OK
> Summary: 3/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
>
> Reviewed-by: Jiang Biao <benbjiang@...cent.com>
> Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong <imagedong@...cent.com>
> ---
>  net/bpf/test_run.c                            | 30 +++++++++++++++-
>  .../testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_test.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++
>  .../testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fexit_test.c  | 35 +++++++++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 98 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/bpf/test_run.c b/net/bpf/test_run.c
> index c73f246a706f..e12a72311eca 100644
> --- a/net/bpf/test_run.c
> +++ b/net/bpf/test_run.c
> @@ -536,6 +536,27 @@ int noinline bpf_fentry_test6(u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, void *e, u64 f)
>         return a + (long)b + c + d + (long)e + f;
>  }
>
> +noinline int bpf_fentry_test7(u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, void *e,
> +                             u64 f, u64 g)
> +{
> +       return a + (long)b + c + d + (long)e + f + g;
> +}
> +
> +noinline int bpf_fentry_test12(u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, void *e,
> +                              u64 f, u64 g, u64 h, u64 i, u64 j,
> +                              u64 k, u64 l)
> +{
> +       return a + (long)b + c + d + (long)e + f + g + h + i + j + k + l;
> +}
> +
> +noinline int bpf_fentry_test14(u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, void *e,
> +                              u64 f, u64 g, u64 h, u64 i, u64 j,
> +                              u64 k, u64 l, u64 m, u64 n)
> +{
> +       return a + (long)b + c + d + (long)e + f + g + h + i + j + k + l +
> +              m + n;
> +}

Please add test func to bpf_testmod instead of here.