From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32C62C742A1 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 00:38:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D471421019 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 00:38:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="n7LTvSQS" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728474AbfGLAiB (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jul 2019 20:38:01 -0400 Received: from mail-qt1-f193.google.com ([209.85.160.193]:34465 "EHLO mail-qt1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726199AbfGLAiB (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jul 2019 20:38:01 -0400 Received: by mail-qt1-f193.google.com with SMTP id k10so6460948qtq.1; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 17:38:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=JiiqO1dfDLJMFX5mT4ARY95upHgUOuM58KSmu+2M/SY=; b=n7LTvSQS1fMV7dWf9+u/0C88tFTMzIQMtsGYU2EuhIKgxU6+0c6Usl0FKAFt1eRi8S XvdLQXjp2KkFkCAzpS5N6Fu15aYhZ53RrsYFuQCv4kra/GDLh9y66C4pyXB3xabjS/0C AMKN3MkAmXlU1uqcRQDoKIDjaygRo9t+vj7Pq7psUys3EfWXpVgcBdFaQKB5A2iRSgOo K5vG30hhe/tFnrp2/us+usWB9w9nEQTVqxof/LevAaY4eldnSs2PkF7YyXI1D+uxDKVN 88zr5w3PY3/k7a2eT6iOGIWnTYmSm4ZkOFnRmuMiRqtXpcRMHKvyjJWaD5E4Mr46g4Oe tHKQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=JiiqO1dfDLJMFX5mT4ARY95upHgUOuM58KSmu+2M/SY=; b=HsX0jyG15PdUTvEUqmKJZ+s+Fe3Fzp2HpWEZA6rtKJBKVCMam+JAoFas0lzCu6eXGu kR0ifXnCWRuxHHP15po/D4jWXOHI/21NmxXMCC8SnN8vnrbUsawDB668w0aEysMnnRDs Ilr+C9et58F8999qIpxlAFWuq56AXsMxCs8oQW62Rh6S2OoiFCrXlg4bMqkYbCONI60Y phRhrpDlfSTgzSYHC0feOTTOGaXEbUgwbEcvoJe+2Iy9qZ8QwzyBByiOGE3Ub2tVYyk2 ggu1h/r4wqXQ59dyweA1E7/8cUkA3I05ltwmbjJ8PVycRj8rLGbgGEtQ71xUWtp5Qr14 6pKA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWoAlnrKqDvMS7S+dWZnA6EZ3iy1y+MsOdq3mxajPJTBmTty45k OIR1clQ0HIi/RAgo3Ejt2x8LJ10MYxfieeaR8D4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyvkoVSNCBEUI9LpZDxTY7742Me/clugQM9b/g/NyhJlnzIG18C8jCOCLEKzoyKFXrknhiwNnrhifcZcHDDH7w= X-Received: by 2002:a0c:ae50:: with SMTP id z16mr4163447qvc.60.1562891879478; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 17:37:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190708163121.18477-1-krzesimir@kinvolk.io> <20190708163121.18477-12-krzesimir@kinvolk.io> In-Reply-To: <20190708163121.18477-12-krzesimir@kinvolk.io> From: Andrii Nakryiko Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 17:37:48 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [bpf-next v3 11/12] selftests/bpf: Add tests for bpf_prog_test_run for perf events progs To: Krzesimir Nowak Cc: open list , Alban Crequy , =?UTF-8?Q?Iago_L=C3=B3pez_Galeiras?= , Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , Martin KaFai Lau , Song Liu , Yonghong Song , "David S. Miller" , Jakub Kicinski , Jesper Dangaard Brouer , John Fastabend , Stanislav Fomichev , Networking , bpf , xdp-newbies@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: bpf-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 3:42 PM Krzesimir Nowak 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 > --- > 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 >