netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2] selftests/bpf: Include runner extras for install target

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: <CAEf4BzaewwHQn7xBgiuckH3xbRHGc6GxvAq6rXf6Ep+KDWDEFg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2024 15:10:31 -0800
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To: Björn Töpel <bjorn@...nel.org>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, 
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@...com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org, 
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Björn Töpel <bjorn@...osinc.com>, 
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2] selftests/bpf: Include runner extras for
 install target

On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 8:05 AM Björn Töpel <bjorn@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> From: Björn Töpel <bjorn@...osinc.com>
>
> When using the "install" or targets depending on install, e.g.
> "gen_tar", the "runner extras" weren't included for the BPF machine
> flavors.
>
> Make sure the necessary helper scripts/tools are added to
> corresponding BPF machine flavor.
>
> Signed-off-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn@...osinc.com>
> ---
> v2: Added btf_dump_test_case files
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile | 18 +++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile
> index fd15017ed3b1..d5cff32997b3 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile
> @@ -744,8 +744,20 @@ EXTRA_CLEAN := $(TEST_CUSTOM_PROGS) $(SCRATCH_DIR) $(HOST_SCRATCH_DIR)     \
>  DEFAULT_INSTALL_RULE := $(INSTALL_RULE)
>  override define INSTALL_RULE
>         $(DEFAULT_INSTALL_RULE)
> -       @for DIR in $(TEST_INST_SUBDIRS); do              \
> -               mkdir -p $(INSTALL_PATH)/$$DIR;   \
> -               rsync -a $(OUTPUT)/$$DIR/*.bpf.o $(INSTALL_PATH)/$$DIR;\
> +       @for DIR in $(TEST_INST_SUBDIRS); do                    \
> +               mkdir -p $(INSTALL_PATH)/$$DIR;                 \
> +               rsync -a --copy-unsafe-links                    \
> +                       $(OUTPUT)/$$DIR/bpf_testmod.ko          \
> +                       $(OUTPUT)/$$DIR/bpftool                 \
> +                       $(OUTPUT)/$$DIR/ima_setup.sh            \
> +                       $(OUTPUT)/$$DIR/liburandom_read.so      \
> +                       $(OUTPUT)/$$DIR/sign-file               \
> +                       $(OUTPUT)/$$DIR/uprobe_multi            \
> +                       $(OUTPUT)/$$DIR/urandom_read            \
> +                       $(OUTPUT)/$$DIR/verify_sig_setup.sh     \
> +                       $(OUTPUT)/$$DIR/xdp_synproxy            \
> +                       $(OUTPUT)/$$DIR/btf_dump_test_case_*.c  \
> +                       $(OUTPUT)/$$DIR/*.bpf.o                 \
> +                       $(INSTALL_PATH)/$$DIR;                  \

My concern is that this will get out of sync and will go unnoticed
next time we add another "extra" file. We have TRUNNER_EXTRA_FILES,
should we use that list to keep these extras in fewer places?

>         done
>  endef
>
> base-commit: c8632acf193beac64bbdaebef013368c480bf74f
> --
> 2.40.1
>