* [PATCH] selftests/bpf: fix flexible_array.cocci warnings
2022-01-22 9:03 [PATCH bpf-next v8 09/10] selftests/bpf: Extend kfunc selftests kernel test robot
@ 2022-01-22 8:58 ` kernel test robot
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: kernel test robot @ 2022-01-22 8:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kbuild
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1453 bytes --]
CC: kbuild-all(a)lists.01.org
In-Reply-To: <20220114163953.1455836-10-memxor@gmail.com>
References: <20220114163953.1455836-10-memxor@gmail.com>
TO: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
From: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
net/bpf/test_run.c:296:6-10: WARNING use flexible-array member instead (https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/deprecated.html#zero-length-and-one-element-arrays)
Zero-length and one-element arrays are deprecated, see
Documentation/process/deprecated.rst
Flexible-array members should be used instead.
Generated by: scripts/coccinelle/misc/flexible_array.cocci
CC: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
---
url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Kumar-Kartikeya-Dwivedi/Introduce-unstable-CT-lookup-helpers/20220115-004219
base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next.git master
:::::: branch date: 8 days ago
:::::: commit date: 8 days ago
Please take the patch only if it's a positive warning. Thanks!
test_run.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- a/net/bpf/test_run.c
+++ b/net/bpf/test_run.c
@@ -293,7 +293,7 @@ struct prog_test_fail2 {
struct prog_test_fail3 {
int len;
char arr1[2];
- char arr2[0];
+ char arr2[];
};
noinline void bpf_kfunc_call_test_pass_ctx(struct __sk_buff *skb)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH bpf-next v8 09/10] selftests/bpf: Extend kfunc selftests
@ 2022-01-22 9:03 kernel test robot
2022-01-22 8:58 ` [PATCH] selftests/bpf: fix flexible_array.cocci warnings kernel test robot
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: kernel test robot @ 2022-01-22 9:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kbuild
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1325 bytes --]
CC: kbuild-all(a)lists.01.org
In-Reply-To: <20220114163953.1455836-10-memxor@gmail.com>
References: <20220114163953.1455836-10-memxor@gmail.com>
TO: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Hi Kumar,
Thank you for the patch! Perhaps something to improve:
[auto build test WARNING on bpf-next/master]
url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Kumar-Kartikeya-Dwivedi/Introduce-unstable-CT-lookup-helpers/20220115-004219
base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next.git master
:::::: branch date: 8 days ago
:::::: commit date: 8 days ago
config: x86_64-randconfig-c022-20220117 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20220122/202201221618.3iotxtfv-lkp(a)intel.com/config)
compiler: gcc-9 (Debian 9.3.0-22) 9.3.0
If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag as appropriate
Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Reported-by: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
cocci warnings: (new ones prefixed by >>)
>> net/bpf/test_run.c:296:6-10: WARNING use flexible-array member instead (https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/deprecated.html#zero-length-and-one-element-arrays)
Please review and possibly fold the followup patch.
---
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service, Intel Corporation
https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/kbuild-all(a)lists.01.org
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH bpf-next v8 09/10] selftests/bpf: Extend kfunc selftests
2022-05-26 5:15 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
@ 2022-05-26 6:19 ` Benjamin Poirier
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Benjamin Poirier @ 2022-05-26 6:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
Cc: bpf, Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko,
netdev, netfilter-devel, Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu,
Yonghong Song, John Fastabend, Maxim Mikityanskiy,
Pablo Neira Ayuso, Florian Westphal, Jesper Dangaard Brouer,
Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
On 2022-05-26 10:45 +0530, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 06:52:59AM IST, Benjamin Poirier wrote:
> > On 2022-01-14 22:09 +0530, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:
> > > Use the prog_test kfuncs to test the referenced PTR_TO_BTF_ID kfunc
> > > support, and PTR_TO_CTX, PTR_TO_MEM argument passing support. Also
> > > testing the various failure cases for invalid kfunc prototypes.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > > net/bpf/test_run.c | 129 +++++++++++++++++-
> > > .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c | 6 +
> > > .../selftests/bpf/progs/kfunc_call_test.c | 52 ++++++-
> > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/calls.c | 75 ++++++++++
> > > 4 files changed, 258 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >
> >
> > It looks like this patch broke building the bpf tests:
> >
> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf$ make
> > CLNG-BPF [test_maps] kfunc_call_test.o
> > progs/kfunc_call_test.c:13:46: error: declaration of 'struct prog_test_pass1' will not be visible outside of this function [-Werror,-Wvisibility]
> > extern void bpf_kfunc_call_test_pass1(struct prog_test_pass1 *p) __ksym;
> > ^
> >
> > The only definition of struct prog_test_pass1 that I see is in
> > net/bpf/test_run.c. How is this supposed to work?
> >
> >
> > commit 87091063df5d ("selftests/bpf: Add test for unstable CT lookup
> > API") from the same series added a similar problem in
> > progs/test_bpf_nf.c:
> >
> > progs/test_bpf_nf.c:31:21: error: variable has incomplete type 'struct bpf_ct_opts'
> > struct bpf_ct_opts opts_def = { .l4proto = IPPROTO_TCP, .netns_id = -1 };
> >
>
> Both of them should have their definition in vmlinux.h. Can you check?
My bad, I didn't realize it was generated from the running kernel. The
build works after trying again while running v5.18.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH bpf-next v8 09/10] selftests/bpf: Extend kfunc selftests
2022-05-26 1:22 ` Benjamin Poirier
@ 2022-05-26 5:15 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-05-26 6:19 ` Benjamin Poirier
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi @ 2022-05-26 5:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Benjamin Poirier
Cc: bpf, Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko,
netdev, netfilter-devel, Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu,
Yonghong Song, John Fastabend, Maxim Mikityanskiy,
Pablo Neira Ayuso, Florian Westphal, Jesper Dangaard Brouer,
Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 06:52:59AM IST, Benjamin Poirier wrote:
> On 2022-01-14 22:09 +0530, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:
> > Use the prog_test kfuncs to test the referenced PTR_TO_BTF_ID kfunc
> > support, and PTR_TO_CTX, PTR_TO_MEM argument passing support. Also
> > testing the various failure cases for invalid kfunc prototypes.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > net/bpf/test_run.c | 129 +++++++++++++++++-
> > .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c | 6 +
> > .../selftests/bpf/progs/kfunc_call_test.c | 52 ++++++-
> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/calls.c | 75 ++++++++++
> > 4 files changed, 258 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
>
> It looks like this patch broke building the bpf tests:
>
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf$ make
> CLNG-BPF [test_maps] kfunc_call_test.o
> progs/kfunc_call_test.c:13:46: error: declaration of 'struct prog_test_pass1' will not be visible outside of this function [-Werror,-Wvisibility]
> extern void bpf_kfunc_call_test_pass1(struct prog_test_pass1 *p) __ksym;
> ^
>
> The only definition of struct prog_test_pass1 that I see is in
> net/bpf/test_run.c. How is this supposed to work?
>
>
> commit 87091063df5d ("selftests/bpf: Add test for unstable CT lookup
> API") from the same series added a similar problem in
> progs/test_bpf_nf.c:
>
> progs/test_bpf_nf.c:31:21: error: variable has incomplete type 'struct bpf_ct_opts'
> struct bpf_ct_opts opts_def = { .l4proto = IPPROTO_TCP, .netns_id = -1 };
>
Both of them should have their definition in vmlinux.h. Can you check? Also for
BPF selftests we require conntrack to be built into the kernel, instead of as a
module.
--
Kartikeya
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH bpf-next v8 09/10] selftests/bpf: Extend kfunc selftests
2022-01-14 16:39 ` [PATCH bpf-next v8 09/10] selftests/bpf: Extend kfunc selftests Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
@ 2022-05-26 1:22 ` Benjamin Poirier
2022-05-26 5:15 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Benjamin Poirier @ 2022-05-26 1:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
Cc: bpf, Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko,
netdev, netfilter-devel, Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu,
Yonghong Song, John Fastabend, Maxim Mikityanskiy,
Pablo Neira Ayuso, Florian Westphal, Jesper Dangaard Brouer,
Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
On 2022-01-14 22:09 +0530, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:
> Use the prog_test kfuncs to test the referenced PTR_TO_BTF_ID kfunc
> support, and PTR_TO_CTX, PTR_TO_MEM argument passing support. Also
> testing the various failure cases for invalid kfunc prototypes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
> ---
> net/bpf/test_run.c | 129 +++++++++++++++++-
> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c | 6 +
> .../selftests/bpf/progs/kfunc_call_test.c | 52 ++++++-
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/calls.c | 75 ++++++++++
> 4 files changed, 258 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
It looks like this patch broke building the bpf tests:
tools/testing/selftests/bpf$ make
CLNG-BPF [test_maps] kfunc_call_test.o
progs/kfunc_call_test.c:13:46: error: declaration of 'struct prog_test_pass1' will not be visible outside of this function [-Werror,-Wvisibility]
extern void bpf_kfunc_call_test_pass1(struct prog_test_pass1 *p) __ksym;
^
The only definition of struct prog_test_pass1 that I see is in
net/bpf/test_run.c. How is this supposed to work?
commit 87091063df5d ("selftests/bpf: Add test for unstable CT lookup
API") from the same series added a similar problem in
progs/test_bpf_nf.c:
progs/test_bpf_nf.c:31:21: error: variable has incomplete type 'struct bpf_ct_opts'
struct bpf_ct_opts opts_def = { .l4proto = IPPROTO_TCP, .netns_id = -1 };
^
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH bpf-next v8 09/10] selftests/bpf: Extend kfunc selftests
@ 2022-02-09 2:27 kernel test robot
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: kernel test robot @ 2022-02-09 2:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kbuild
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1327 bytes --]
CC: kbuild-all(a)lists.01.org
In-Reply-To: <20220114163953.1455836-10-memxor@gmail.com>
References: <20220114163953.1455836-10-memxor@gmail.com>
TO: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Hi Kumar,
Thank you for the patch! Perhaps something to improve:
[auto build test WARNING on bpf-next/master]
url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Kumar-Kartikeya-Dwivedi/Introduce-unstable-CT-lookup-helpers/20220115-004219
base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next.git master
:::::: branch date: 4 weeks ago
:::::: commit date: 4 weeks ago
config: x86_64-randconfig-c022-20220117 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20220209/202202091058.J42UnQfr-lkp(a)intel.com/config)
compiler: gcc-9 (Debian 9.3.0-22) 9.3.0
If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag as appropriate
Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Reported-by: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
cocci warnings: (new ones prefixed by >>)
>> net/bpf/test_run.c:296:6-10: WARNING use flexible-array member instead (https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/deprecated.html#zero-length-and-one-element-arrays)
Please review and possibly fold the followup patch.
---
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service, Intel Corporation
https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/kbuild-all(a)lists.01.org
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH bpf-next v8 09/10] selftests/bpf: Extend kfunc selftests
@ 2022-02-07 20:43 kernel test robot
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: kernel test robot @ 2022-02-07 20:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kbuild
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1327 bytes --]
CC: kbuild-all(a)lists.01.org
In-Reply-To: <20220114163953.1455836-10-memxor@gmail.com>
References: <20220114163953.1455836-10-memxor@gmail.com>
TO: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Hi Kumar,
Thank you for the patch! Perhaps something to improve:
[auto build test WARNING on bpf-next/master]
url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Kumar-Kartikeya-Dwivedi/Introduce-unstable-CT-lookup-helpers/20220115-004219
base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next.git master
:::::: branch date: 3 weeks ago
:::::: commit date: 3 weeks ago
config: x86_64-randconfig-c022-20220117 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20220208/202202080402.OAVS4oRI-lkp(a)intel.com/config)
compiler: gcc-9 (Debian 9.3.0-22) 9.3.0
If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag as appropriate
Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Reported-by: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
cocci warnings: (new ones prefixed by >>)
>> net/bpf/test_run.c:296:6-10: WARNING use flexible-array member instead (https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/deprecated.html#zero-length-and-one-element-arrays)
Please review and possibly fold the followup patch.
---
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service, Intel Corporation
https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/kbuild-all(a)lists.01.org
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH bpf-next v8 09/10] selftests/bpf: Extend kfunc selftests
@ 2022-01-26 2:28 kernel test robot
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: kernel test robot @ 2022-01-26 2:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kbuild
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1327 bytes --]
CC: kbuild-all(a)lists.01.org
In-Reply-To: <20220114163953.1455836-10-memxor@gmail.com>
References: <20220114163953.1455836-10-memxor@gmail.com>
TO: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Hi Kumar,
Thank you for the patch! Perhaps something to improve:
[auto build test WARNING on bpf-next/master]
url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Kumar-Kartikeya-Dwivedi/Introduce-unstable-CT-lookup-helpers/20220115-004219
base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next.git master
:::::: branch date: 11 days ago
:::::: commit date: 11 days ago
config: x86_64-randconfig-c022-20220117 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20220126/202201260919.EU2zNroM-lkp(a)intel.com/config)
compiler: gcc-9 (Debian 9.3.0-22) 9.3.0
If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag as appropriate
Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Reported-by: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
cocci warnings: (new ones prefixed by >>)
>> net/bpf/test_run.c:296:6-10: WARNING use flexible-array member instead (https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/deprecated.html#zero-length-and-one-element-arrays)
Please review and possibly fold the followup patch.
---
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service, Intel Corporation
https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/kbuild-all(a)lists.01.org
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH bpf-next v8 09/10] selftests/bpf: Extend kfunc selftests
@ 2022-01-18 14:57 kernel test robot
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: kernel test robot @ 2022-01-18 14:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kbuild
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1325 bytes --]
CC: kbuild-all(a)lists.01.org
In-Reply-To: <20220114163953.1455836-10-memxor@gmail.com>
References: <20220114163953.1455836-10-memxor@gmail.com>
TO: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Hi Kumar,
Thank you for the patch! Perhaps something to improve:
[auto build test WARNING on bpf-next/master]
url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Kumar-Kartikeya-Dwivedi/Introduce-unstable-CT-lookup-helpers/20220115-004219
base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next.git master
:::::: branch date: 4 days ago
:::::: commit date: 4 days ago
config: x86_64-randconfig-c022-20220117 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20220118/202201182215.eXTopxlT-lkp(a)intel.com/config)
compiler: gcc-9 (Debian 9.3.0-22) 9.3.0
If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag as appropriate
Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Reported-by: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
cocci warnings: (new ones prefixed by >>)
>> net/bpf/test_run.c:296:6-10: WARNING use flexible-array member instead (https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/deprecated.html#zero-length-and-one-element-arrays)
Please review and possibly fold the followup patch.
---
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service, Intel Corporation
https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/kbuild-all(a)lists.01.org
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [PATCH bpf-next v8 09/10] selftests/bpf: Extend kfunc selftests
2022-01-14 16:39 [PATCH bpf-next v8 00/10] Introduce unstable CT lookup helpers Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
@ 2022-01-14 16:39 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-05-26 1:22 ` Benjamin Poirier
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi @ 2022-01-14 16:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bpf, Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko,
netdev, netfilter-devel
Cc: Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu, Yonghong Song, John Fastabend,
Maxim Mikityanskiy, Pablo Neira Ayuso, Florian Westphal,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
Use the prog_test kfuncs to test the referenced PTR_TO_BTF_ID kfunc
support, and PTR_TO_CTX, PTR_TO_MEM argument passing support. Also
testing the various failure cases for invalid kfunc prototypes.
Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
---
net/bpf/test_run.c | 129 +++++++++++++++++-
.../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c | 6 +
.../selftests/bpf/progs/kfunc_call_test.c | 52 ++++++-
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/calls.c | 75 ++++++++++
4 files changed, 258 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/bpf/test_run.c b/net/bpf/test_run.c
index 7796a8c747a0..93ba56507240 100644
--- a/net/bpf/test_run.c
+++ b/net/bpf/test_run.c
@@ -233,6 +233,105 @@ struct sock * noinline bpf_kfunc_call_test3(struct sock *sk)
return sk;
}
+struct prog_test_ref_kfunc {
+ int a;
+ int b;
+ struct prog_test_ref_kfunc *next;
+};
+
+static struct prog_test_ref_kfunc prog_test_struct = {
+ .a = 42,
+ .b = 108,
+ .next = &prog_test_struct,
+};
+
+noinline struct prog_test_ref_kfunc *
+bpf_kfunc_call_test_acquire(unsigned long *scalar_ptr)
+{
+ /* randomly return NULL */
+ if (get_jiffies_64() % 2)
+ return NULL;
+ return &prog_test_struct;
+}
+
+noinline void bpf_kfunc_call_test_release(struct prog_test_ref_kfunc *p)
+{
+}
+
+struct prog_test_pass1 {
+ int x0;
+ struct {
+ int x1;
+ struct {
+ int x2;
+ struct {
+ int x3;
+ };
+ };
+ };
+};
+
+struct prog_test_pass2 {
+ int len;
+ short arr1[4];
+ struct {
+ char arr2[4];
+ unsigned long arr3[8];
+ } x;
+};
+
+struct prog_test_fail1 {
+ void *p;
+ int x;
+};
+
+struct prog_test_fail2 {
+ int x8;
+ struct prog_test_pass1 x;
+};
+
+struct prog_test_fail3 {
+ int len;
+ char arr1[2];
+ char arr2[0];
+};
+
+noinline void bpf_kfunc_call_test_pass_ctx(struct __sk_buff *skb)
+{
+}
+
+noinline void bpf_kfunc_call_test_pass1(struct prog_test_pass1 *p)
+{
+}
+
+noinline void bpf_kfunc_call_test_pass2(struct prog_test_pass2 *p)
+{
+}
+
+noinline void bpf_kfunc_call_test_fail1(struct prog_test_fail1 *p)
+{
+}
+
+noinline void bpf_kfunc_call_test_fail2(struct prog_test_fail2 *p)
+{
+}
+
+noinline void bpf_kfunc_call_test_fail3(struct prog_test_fail3 *p)
+{
+}
+
+noinline void bpf_kfunc_call_test_mem_len_pass1(void *mem, int mem__sz)
+{
+}
+
+noinline void bpf_kfunc_call_test_mem_len_fail1(void *mem, int len)
+{
+}
+
+noinline void bpf_kfunc_call_test_mem_len_fail2(u64 *mem, int len)
+{
+}
+
__diag_pop();
ALLOW_ERROR_INJECTION(bpf_modify_return_test, ERRNO);
@@ -241,8 +340,31 @@ BTF_SET_START(test_sk_check_kfunc_ids)
BTF_ID(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test1)
BTF_ID(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test2)
BTF_ID(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test3)
+BTF_ID(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test_acquire)
+BTF_ID(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test_release)
+BTF_ID(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test_pass_ctx)
+BTF_ID(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test_pass1)
+BTF_ID(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test_pass2)
+BTF_ID(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test_fail1)
+BTF_ID(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test_fail2)
+BTF_ID(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test_fail3)
+BTF_ID(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test_mem_len_pass1)
+BTF_ID(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test_mem_len_fail1)
+BTF_ID(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test_mem_len_fail2)
BTF_SET_END(test_sk_check_kfunc_ids)
+BTF_SET_START(test_sk_acquire_kfunc_ids)
+BTF_ID(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test_acquire)
+BTF_SET_END(test_sk_acquire_kfunc_ids)
+
+BTF_SET_START(test_sk_release_kfunc_ids)
+BTF_ID(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test_release)
+BTF_SET_END(test_sk_release_kfunc_ids)
+
+BTF_SET_START(test_sk_ret_null_kfunc_ids)
+BTF_ID(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test_acquire)
+BTF_SET_END(test_sk_ret_null_kfunc_ids)
+
static void *bpf_test_init(const union bpf_attr *kattr, u32 size,
u32 headroom, u32 tailroom)
{
@@ -1063,8 +1185,11 @@ int bpf_prog_test_run_syscall(struct bpf_prog *prog,
}
static const struct btf_kfunc_id_set bpf_prog_test_kfunc_set = {
- .owner = THIS_MODULE,
- .check_set = &test_sk_check_kfunc_ids,
+ .owner = THIS_MODULE,
+ .check_set = &test_sk_check_kfunc_ids,
+ .acquire_set = &test_sk_acquire_kfunc_ids,
+ .release_set = &test_sk_release_kfunc_ids,
+ .ret_null_set = &test_sk_ret_null_kfunc_ids,
};
static int __init bpf_prog_test_run_init(void)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c
index 7d7445ccc141..b39a4f09aefd 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c
@@ -27,6 +27,12 @@ static void test_main(void)
ASSERT_OK(err, "bpf_prog_test_run(test2)");
ASSERT_EQ(retval, 3, "test2-retval");
+ prog_fd = skel->progs.kfunc_call_test_ref_btf_id.prog_fd;
+ err = bpf_prog_test_run(prog_fd, 1, &pkt_v4, sizeof(pkt_v4),
+ NULL, NULL, (__u32 *)&retval, NULL);
+ ASSERT_OK(err, "bpf_prog_test_run(test_ref_btf_id)");
+ ASSERT_EQ(retval, 0, "test_ref_btf_id-retval");
+
kfunc_call_test_lskel__destroy(skel);
}
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/kfunc_call_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/kfunc_call_test.c
index 8a8cf59017aa..5aecbb9fdc68 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/kfunc_call_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/kfunc_call_test.c
@@ -1,13 +1,20 @@
// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
/* Copyright (c) 2021 Facebook */
-#include <linux/bpf.h>
+#include <vmlinux.h>
#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
-#include "bpf_tcp_helpers.h"
extern int bpf_kfunc_call_test2(struct sock *sk, __u32 a, __u32 b) __ksym;
extern __u64 bpf_kfunc_call_test1(struct sock *sk, __u32 a, __u64 b,
__u32 c, __u64 d) __ksym;
+extern struct prog_test_ref_kfunc *bpf_kfunc_call_test_acquire(unsigned long *sp) __ksym;
+extern void bpf_kfunc_call_test_release(struct prog_test_ref_kfunc *p) __ksym;
+extern void bpf_kfunc_call_test_pass_ctx(struct __sk_buff *skb) __ksym;
+extern void bpf_kfunc_call_test_pass1(struct prog_test_pass1 *p) __ksym;
+extern void bpf_kfunc_call_test_pass2(struct prog_test_pass2 *p) __ksym;
+extern void bpf_kfunc_call_test_mem_len_pass1(void *mem, int len) __ksym;
+extern void bpf_kfunc_call_test_mem_len_fail2(__u64 *mem, int len) __ksym;
+
SEC("tc")
int kfunc_call_test2(struct __sk_buff *skb)
{
@@ -44,4 +51,45 @@ int kfunc_call_test1(struct __sk_buff *skb)
return ret;
}
+SEC("tc")
+int kfunc_call_test_ref_btf_id(struct __sk_buff *skb)
+{
+ struct prog_test_ref_kfunc *pt;
+ unsigned long s = 0;
+ int ret = 0;
+
+ pt = bpf_kfunc_call_test_acquire(&s);
+ if (pt) {
+ if (pt->a != 42 || pt->b != 108)
+ ret = -1;
+ bpf_kfunc_call_test_release(pt);
+ }
+ return ret;
+}
+
+SEC("tc")
+int kfunc_call_test_pass(struct __sk_buff *skb)
+{
+ struct prog_test_pass1 p1 = {};
+ struct prog_test_pass2 p2 = {};
+ short a = 0;
+ __u64 b = 0;
+ long c = 0;
+ char d = 0;
+ int e = 0;
+
+ bpf_kfunc_call_test_pass_ctx(skb);
+ bpf_kfunc_call_test_pass1(&p1);
+ bpf_kfunc_call_test_pass2(&p2);
+
+ bpf_kfunc_call_test_mem_len_pass1(&a, sizeof(a));
+ bpf_kfunc_call_test_mem_len_pass1(&b, sizeof(b));
+ bpf_kfunc_call_test_mem_len_pass1(&c, sizeof(c));
+ bpf_kfunc_call_test_mem_len_pass1(&d, sizeof(d));
+ bpf_kfunc_call_test_mem_len_pass1(&e, sizeof(e));
+ bpf_kfunc_call_test_mem_len_fail2(&b, -1);
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/calls.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/calls.c
index d7b74eb28333..829be2b9e08e 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/calls.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/calls.c
@@ -21,6 +21,81 @@
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACEPOINT,
.result = ACCEPT,
},
+{
+ "calls: invalid kfunc call: ptr_to_mem to struct with non-scalar",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -8),
+ BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL, 0, 0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
+ .result = REJECT,
+ .errstr = "arg#0 pointer type STRUCT prog_test_fail1 must point to scalar",
+ .fixup_kfunc_btf_id = {
+ { "bpf_kfunc_call_test_fail1", 2 },
+ },
+},
+{
+ "calls: invalid kfunc call: ptr_to_mem to struct with nesting depth > 4",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -8),
+ BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL, 0, 0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
+ .result = REJECT,
+ .errstr = "max struct nesting depth exceeded\narg#0 pointer type STRUCT prog_test_fail2",
+ .fixup_kfunc_btf_id = {
+ { "bpf_kfunc_call_test_fail2", 2 },
+ },
+},
+{
+ "calls: invalid kfunc call: ptr_to_mem to struct with FAM",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -8),
+ BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL, 0, 0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
+ .result = REJECT,
+ .errstr = "arg#0 pointer type STRUCT prog_test_fail3 must point to scalar",
+ .fixup_kfunc_btf_id = {
+ { "bpf_kfunc_call_test_fail3", 2 },
+ },
+},
+{
+ "calls: invalid kfunc call: reg->type != PTR_TO_CTX",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -8),
+ BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL, 0, 0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
+ .result = REJECT,
+ .errstr = "arg#0 expected pointer to ctx, but got PTR",
+ .fixup_kfunc_btf_id = {
+ { "bpf_kfunc_call_test_pass_ctx", 2 },
+ },
+},
+{
+ "calls: invalid kfunc call: void * not allowed in func proto without mem size arg",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -8),
+ BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL, 0, 0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
+ .result = REJECT,
+ .errstr = "arg#0 pointer type UNKNOWN must point to scalar",
+ .fixup_kfunc_btf_id = {
+ { "bpf_kfunc_call_test_mem_len_fail1", 2 },
+ },
+},
{
"calls: basic sanity",
.insns = {
--
2.34.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-05-26 6:19 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-01-22 9:03 [PATCH bpf-next v8 09/10] selftests/bpf: Extend kfunc selftests kernel test robot
2022-01-22 8:58 ` [PATCH] selftests/bpf: fix flexible_array.cocci warnings kernel test robot
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2022-02-09 2:27 [PATCH bpf-next v8 09/10] selftests/bpf: Extend kfunc selftests kernel test robot
2022-02-07 20:43 kernel test robot
2022-01-26 2:28 kernel test robot
2022-01-18 14:57 kernel test robot
2022-01-14 16:39 [PATCH bpf-next v8 00/10] Introduce unstable CT lookup helpers Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-01-14 16:39 ` [PATCH bpf-next v8 09/10] selftests/bpf: Extend kfunc selftests Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-05-26 1:22 ` Benjamin Poirier
2022-05-26 5:15 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-05-26 6:19 ` Benjamin Poirier
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.