From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
To: Krzesimir Nowak <krzesimir@kinvolk.io>
Cc: "open list" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Alban Crequy" <alban@kinvolk.io>,
"Iago López Galeiras" <iago@kinvolk.io>,
"Alexei Starovoitov" <ast@kernel.org>,
"Daniel Borkmann" <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
"Martin KaFai Lau" <kafai@fb.com>,
"Song Liu" <songliubraving@fb.com>, "Yonghong Song" <yhs@fb.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
"Jakub Kicinski" <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>,
"Jesper Dangaard Brouer" <hawk@kernel.org>,
"John Fastabend" <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
"Stanislav Fomichev" <sdf@google.com>,
Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
xdp-newbies@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [bpf-next v3 11/12] selftests/bpf: Add tests for bpf_prog_test_run for perf events progs
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 17:37:48 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAEf4BzYaV=AxYZna225qKzyWPteU4YFPiBRE4cO30tYmyN_pJQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190708163121.18477-12-krzesimir@kinvolk.io>
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 3:42 PM Krzesimir Nowak <krzesimir@kinvolk.io> wrote:
>
> The tests check if ctx and data are correctly prepared from ctx_in and
> data_in, so accessing the ctx and using the bpf_perf_prog_read_value
> work as expected.
>
These are x86_64-specific tests, aren't they? Should probably guard
them behind #ifdef's.
> Signed-off-by: Krzesimir Nowak <krzesimir@kinvolk.io>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 48 ++++++++++
> .../selftests/bpf/verifier/perf_event_run.c | 96 +++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 144 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/perf_event_run.c
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> index 6f124cc4ee34..484ea8842b06 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> @@ -295,6 +295,54 @@ static void bpf_fill_scale(struct bpf_test *self)
> }
> }
>
> +static void bpf_fill_perf_event_test_run_check(struct bpf_test *self)
> +{
> + compiletime_assert(
> + sizeof(struct bpf_perf_event_data) <= TEST_CTX_LEN,
> + "buffer for ctx is too short to fit struct bpf_perf_event_data");
> + compiletime_assert(
> + sizeof(struct bpf_perf_event_value) <= TEST_DATA_LEN,
> + "buffer for data is too short to fit struct bpf_perf_event_value");
> +
> + struct bpf_perf_event_data ctx = {
> + .regs = (bpf_user_pt_regs_t) {
> + .r15 = 1,
> + .r14 = 2,
> + .r13 = 3,
> + .r12 = 4,
> + .rbp = 5,
> + .rbx = 6,
> + .r11 = 7,
> + .r10 = 8,
> + .r9 = 9,
> + .r8 = 10,
> + .rax = 11,
> + .rcx = 12,
> + .rdx = 13,
> + .rsi = 14,
> + .rdi = 15,
> + .orig_rax = 16,
> + .rip = 17,
> + .cs = 18,
> + .eflags = 19,
> + .rsp = 20,
> + .ss = 21,
> + },
> + .sample_period = 1,
> + .addr = 2,
> + };
> + struct bpf_perf_event_value data = {
> + .counter = 1,
> + .enabled = 2,
> + .running = 3,
> + };
> +
> + memcpy(self->ctx, &ctx, sizeof(ctx));
> + memcpy(self->data, &data, sizeof(data));
Just curious, just assignment didn't work?
> + free(self->fill_insns);
> + self->fill_insns = NULL;
> +}
> +
> /* BPF_SK_LOOKUP contains 13 instructions, if you need to fix up maps */
> #define BPF_SK_LOOKUP(func) \
> /* struct bpf_sock_tuple tuple = {} */ \
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/perf_event_run.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/perf_event_run.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..3f877458a7f8
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/perf_event_run.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,96 @@
> +#define PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_PTREG(PT_REG_FIELD, VALUE) \
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_CTX(offsetof(bpf_user_pt_regs_t, PT_REG_FIELD), VALUE)
> +#define PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_EVENT(PED_FIELD, VALUE) \
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_CTX(offsetof(struct bpf_perf_event_data, PED_FIELD), VALUE)
> +#define PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_CTX(OFFSET, VALUE) \
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_64(BPF_REG_4, BPF_REG_1, OFFSET, VALUE)
> +#define PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_VALUE(PEV_FIELD, VALUE) \
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_64(BPF_REG_7, BPF_REG_6, offsetof(struct bpf_perf_event_value, PEV_FIELD), VALUE)
Wrap long lines? Try also running scripts/checkpatch.pl again these
files you are modifying.
> +#define PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_64(DST, SRC, OFFSET, VALUE) \
> + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, DST, SRC, OFFSET), \
> + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, DST, VALUE, 2), \
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, VALUE), \
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN()
> +
> +{
> + "check if regs contain expected values",
> + .insns = {
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_PTREG(r15, 1),
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_PTREG(r14, 2),
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_PTREG(r13, 3),
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_PTREG(r12, 4),
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_PTREG(rbp, 5),
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_PTREG(rbx, 6),
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_PTREG(r11, 7),
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_PTREG(r10, 8),
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_PTREG(r9, 9),
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_PTREG(r8, 10),
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_PTREG(rax, 11),
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_PTREG(rcx, 12),
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_PTREG(rdx, 13),
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_PTREG(rsi, 14),
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_PTREG(rdi, 15),
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_PTREG(orig_rax, 16),
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_PTREG(rip, 17),
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_PTREG(cs, 18),
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_PTREG(eflags, 19),
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_PTREG(rsp, 20),
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_PTREG(ss, 21),
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + },
> + .result = ACCEPT,
> + .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_PERF_EVENT,
> + .ctx_len = sizeof(struct bpf_perf_event_data),
> + .data_len = sizeof(struct bpf_perf_event_value),
> + .fill_helper = bpf_fill_perf_event_test_run_check,
> + .override_data_out_len = true,
> +},
> +{
> + "check if sample period and addr contain expected values",
> + .insns = {
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_EVENT(sample_period, 1),
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_EVENT(addr, 2),
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + },
> + .result = ACCEPT,
> + .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_PERF_EVENT,
> + .ctx_len = sizeof(struct bpf_perf_event_data),
> + .data_len = sizeof(struct bpf_perf_event_value),
> + .fill_helper = bpf_fill_perf_event_test_run_check,
> + .override_data_out_len = true,
> +},
> +{
> + "check if bpf_perf_prog_read_value returns expected data",
> + .insns = {
> + // allocate space for a struct bpf_perf_event_value
> + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_10),
> + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_6, -(int)sizeof(struct bpf_perf_event_value)),
> + // prepare parameters for bpf_perf_prog_read_value(ctx, struct bpf_perf_event_value*, u32)
> + // BPF_REG_1 already contains the context
> + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_6),
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_3, sizeof(struct bpf_perf_event_value)),
> + BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_perf_prog_read_value),
> + // check the return value
> + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + // check if the fields match the expected values
Use /* */ comments.
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_VALUE(counter, 1),
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_VALUE(enabled, 2),
> + PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_VALUE(running, 3),
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + },
> + .result = ACCEPT,
> + .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_PERF_EVENT,
> + .ctx_len = sizeof(struct bpf_perf_event_data),
> + .data_len = sizeof(struct bpf_perf_event_value),
> + .fill_helper = bpf_fill_perf_event_test_run_check,
> + .override_data_out_len = true,
> +},
> +#undef PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_64
> +#undef PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_VALUE
> +#undef PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_CTX
> +#undef PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_EVENT
> +#undef PER_LOAD_AND_CHECK_PTREG
> --
> 2.20.1
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-12 0:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-07-08 16:31 [bpf-next v3 00/12] Test the 32bit narrow reads Krzesimir Nowak
2019-07-08 16:31 ` [bpf-next v3 01/12] selftests/bpf: Print a message when tester could not run a program Krzesimir Nowak
2019-07-10 23:44 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2019-07-11 11:36 ` Krzesimir Nowak
2019-07-12 0:10 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2019-07-08 16:31 ` [bpf-next v3 02/12] selftests/bpf: Avoid a clobbering of errno Krzesimir Nowak
2019-07-10 23:51 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2019-07-11 12:04 ` Krzesimir Nowak
2019-07-12 0:59 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2019-07-12 17:31 ` Krzesimir Nowak
2019-07-08 16:31 ` [bpf-next v3 03/12] selftests/bpf: Avoid another case of errno clobbering Krzesimir Nowak
2019-07-10 23:57 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2019-07-11 12:05 ` Krzesimir Nowak
2019-07-08 16:31 ` [bpf-next v3 04/12] selftests/bpf: Use bpf_prog_test_run_xattr Krzesimir Nowak
2019-07-11 0:03 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2019-07-11 12:07 ` Krzesimir Nowak
2019-07-08 16:31 ` [bpf-next v3 05/12] selftests/bpf: Allow passing more information to BPF prog test run Krzesimir Nowak
2019-07-11 1:17 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2019-07-11 12:17 ` Krzesimir Nowak
2019-07-08 16:31 ` [bpf-next v3 06/12] selftests/bpf: Make sure that preexisting tests for perf event work Krzesimir Nowak
2019-07-08 16:31 ` [bpf-next v3 07/12] tools headers: Adopt compiletime_assert from kernel sources Krzesimir Nowak
2019-07-12 0:19 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2019-07-08 16:31 ` [bpf-next v3 08/12] tools headers: Sync struct bpf_perf_event_data Krzesimir Nowak
2019-07-12 0:21 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2019-07-08 16:31 ` [bpf-next v3 09/12] bpf: Split out some helper functions Krzesimir Nowak
2019-07-08 16:40 ` Krzesimir Nowak
2019-07-11 20:25 ` Stanislav Fomichev
2019-07-08 16:31 ` [bpf-next v3 10/12] bpf: Implement bpf_prog_test_run for perf event programs Krzesimir Nowak
2019-07-11 20:30 ` Stanislav Fomichev
2019-07-08 16:31 ` [bpf-next v3 11/12] selftests/bpf: Add tests for bpf_prog_test_run for perf events progs Krzesimir Nowak
2019-07-12 0:37 ` Andrii Nakryiko [this message]
2019-07-12 17:37 ` Krzesimir Nowak
2019-07-12 17:49 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2019-07-08 16:31 ` [bpf-next v3 12/12] selftests/bpf: Test correctness of narrow 32bit read on 64bit field Krzesimir Nowak
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAEf4BzYaV=AxYZna225qKzyWPteU4YFPiBRE4cO30tYmyN_pJQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
--cc=alban@kinvolk.io \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=hawk@kernel.org \
--cc=iago@kinvolk.io \
--cc=jakub.kicinski@netronome.com \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=kafai@fb.com \
--cc=krzesimir@kinvolk.io \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sdf@google.com \
--cc=songliubraving@fb.com \
--cc=xdp-newbies@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=yhs@fb.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).