netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 4/4] bpf/selftests: add simple selftest for bpf_smc

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: <e8ba7dc0-96b5-4119-b2f6-b07432f65fdb@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2024 10:00:20 +0800
From: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Zhu Yanjun <yanjun.zhu@...ux.dev>, kgraul@...ux.ibm.com,
 wenjia@...ux.ibm.com, jaka@...ux.ibm.com, ast@...nel.org,
 daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org, martin.lau@...ux.dev,
 pabeni@...hat.com, song@...nel.org, sdf@...gle.com, haoluo@...gle.com,
 yhs@...com, edumazet@...gle.com, john.fastabend@...il.com,
 kpsingh@...nel.org, jolsa@...nel.org, guwen@...ux.alibaba.com
Cc: kuba@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
 dtcccc@...ux.alibaba.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 4/4] bpf/selftests: add simple selftest for
 bpf_smc_ops



On 11/3/24 9:01 PM, Zhu Yanjun wrote:
> 在 2024/10/24 4:42, D. Wythe 写道:
>> From: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>
>>
>> This PATCH adds a tiny selftest for bpf_smc_ops, to verify the ability
>> to attach and write access.
>>
>> Follow the steps below to run this test.
>>
>> make -C tools/testing/selftests/bpf
>> cd tools/testing/selftests/bpf
>> sudo ./test_progs -t smc
> 
> Thanks a lot.
> 
> # ./test_progs -t smc
> #27/1    bpf_smc/load:OK
> #27      bpf_smc:OK
> Summary: 1/1 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
> 
> The above command is based on several kernel modules. After these dependent kernel modules are 
> loaded, then can run the above command successfully.
> 
> Zhu Yanjun
> 

Hi, Yanjun

This is indeed a problem, a better way may be to create a separate testing directory for SMC, and we 
are trying to do this.

Best wishes,
D. Wythe

>>
>> Results shows:
>> Summary: 1/1 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
>>
>> Signed-off-by: D. Wythe <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>
>> ---
>>   .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_bpf_smc.c        | 21 +++++++++++
>>   tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_smc.c        | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   2 files changed, 65 insertions(+)
>>   create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_bpf_smc.c
>>   create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_smc.c
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_bpf_smc.c 
>> b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_bpf_smc.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 00000000..2299853
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_bpf_smc.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>> +#include <test_progs.h>
>> +
>> +#include "bpf_smc.skel.h"
>> +
>> +static void load(void)
>> +{
>> +    struct bpf_smc *skel;
>> +
>> +    skel = bpf_smc__open_and_load();
>> +    if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "bpf_smc__open_and_load"))
>> +        return;
>> +
>> +    bpf_smc__destroy(skel);
>> +}
>> +
>> +void test_bpf_smc(void)
>> +{
>> +    if (test__start_subtest("load"))
>> +        load();
>> +}
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_smc.c 
>> b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_smc.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 00000000..ebff477
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_smc.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>> +
>> +#include "vmlinux.h"
>> +
>> +#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
>> +#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
>> +
>> +char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
>> +
>> +struct smc_bpf_ops_ctx {
>> +    struct {
>> +        struct tcp_sock *tp;
>> +    } set_option;
>> +    struct {
>> +        const struct tcp_sock *tp;
>> +        struct inet_request_sock *ireq;
>> +        int smc_ok;
>> +    } set_option_cond;
>> +};
>> +
>> +struct smc_bpf_ops {
>> +    void (*set_option)(struct smc_bpf_ops_ctx *ctx);
>> +    void (*set_option_cond)(struct smc_bpf_ops_ctx *ctx);
>> +};
>> +
>> +SEC("struct_ops/bpf_smc_set_tcp_option_cond")
>> +void BPF_PROG(bpf_smc_set_tcp_option_cond, struct smc_bpf_ops_ctx *arg)
>> +{
>> +    arg->set_option_cond.smc_ok = 1;
>> +}
>> +
>> +SEC("struct_ops/bpf_smc_set_tcp_option")
>> +void BPF_PROG(bpf_smc_set_tcp_option, struct smc_bpf_ops_ctx *arg)
>> +{
>> +    struct tcp_sock *tp = arg->set_option.tp;
>> +
>> +    tp->syn_smc = 1;
>> +}
>> +
>> +SEC(".struct_ops.link")
>> +struct smc_bpf_ops sample_smc_bpf_ops = {
>> +    .set_option         = (void *) bpf_smc_set_tcp_option,
>> +    .set_option_cond    = (void *) bpf_smc_set_tcp_option_cond,
>> +};