netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add testcase where 7th argment is struct

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: <9bffde6f-ca7f-40d4-9b27-4e53ed274751@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 23:50:50 +0800
From: Pu Lehui <pulehui@...weicloud.com>
To: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Björn Töpel <bjorn@...nel.org>,
 Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
 Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, Eduard Zingerman
 <eddyz87@...il.com>, 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>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
 Pu Lehui <pulehui@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add testcase where 7th
 argment is struct



On 2024/4/3 22:40, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 4/3/24 9:28 AM, Pu Lehui wrote:
>> From: Pu Lehui <pulehui@...wei.com>
>>
>> Add testcase where 7th argument is struct for architectures with 8
>> argument registers, and increase the complexity of the struct.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@...wei.com>
>> Acked-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn@...nel.org>
>> Reviewed-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn@...osinc.com>
>> ---
>>   tools/testing/selftests/bpf/DENYLIST.aarch64  |  1 +
>>   .../selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c   | 19 ++++++++++
>>   .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tracing_struct.c | 13 +++++++
>>   .../selftests/bpf/progs/tracing_struct.c      | 35 +++++++++++++++++++
>>   4 files changed, 68 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/DENYLIST.aarch64 
>> b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/DENYLIST.aarch64
>> index d8ade15e2789..639ee3f5bc74 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/DENYLIST.aarch64
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/DENYLIST.aarch64
>> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ kprobe_multi_test                                # 
>> needs CONFIG_FPROBE
>>   module_attach                                    # prog 
>> 'kprobe_multi': failed to auto-attach: -95
>>   fentry_test/fentry_many_args                     # 
>> fentry_many_args:FAIL:fentry_many_args_attach unexpected error: -524
>>   fexit_test/fexit_many_args                       # 
>> fexit_many_args:FAIL:fexit_many_args_attach unexpected error: -524
>> +tracing_struct                                   # 
>> test_fentry:FAIL:tracing_struct__attach unexpected error: -524
> 
> Do we need to blacklist the whole test given it had coverage on arm64
> before.. perhaps this test here could be done as a new subtest and only
> that one is listed for arm64?

Yeah, I thought so at first, just like fexit_many_args of fentry/fexit, 
but I found that the things struct_tracing does are all in the same 
series, but the number or type of parameters are different, and the new 
use case I added is the same in this way. And I found that the execution 
logic of stract_tracing is relatively simple and clear, triggering all 
hook points, executing all bpf programs, and asserting all parameters.
Shall we need to slice them up?

> 
>>   fill_link_info/kprobe_multi_link_info            # 
>> bpf_program__attach_kprobe_multi_opts unexpected error: -95
>>   fill_link_info/kretprobe_multi_link_info         # 
>> bpf_program__attach_kprobe_multi_opts unexpected error: -95
>>   fill_link_info/kprobe_multi_invalid_ubuff        # 
>> bpf_program__attach_kprobe_multi_opts unexpected error: -95
> 
> Thanks,
> Daniel