Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 5/5] selftests/bpf: add testcase for FENTRY/FEXIT with 6+ arguments

[Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Jun 2, 2023 at 12:03 AM <menglong8.dong@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Menglong Dong <imagedong@tencent.com>
>
> Add test7/test12/test14 in fexit_test.c and fentry_test.c to test the
> fentry and fexit whose target function have 7/12/14 arguments.
>
> And the testcases passed:
>
> ./test_progs -t fexit
> $71      fentry_fexit:OK
> $73/1    fexit_bpf2bpf/target_no_callees:OK
> $73/2    fexit_bpf2bpf/target_yes_callees:OK
> $73/3    fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace:OK
> $73/4    fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace_verify:OK
> $73/5    fexit_bpf2bpf/func_sockmap_update:OK
> $73/6    fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace_return_code:OK
> $73/7    fexit_bpf2bpf/func_map_prog_compatibility:OK
> $73/8    fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace_multi:OK
> $73/9    fexit_bpf2bpf/fmod_ret_freplace:OK
> $73/10   fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace_global_func:OK
> $73/11   fexit_bpf2bpf/fentry_to_cgroup_bpf:OK
> $73/12   fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace_progmap:OK
> $73      fexit_bpf2bpf:OK
> $74      fexit_sleep:OK
> $75      fexit_stress:OK
> $76      fexit_test:OK
> Summary: 5/12 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
>
> ./test_progs -t fentry
> $71      fentry_fexit:OK
> $72      fentry_test:OK
> $140     module_fentry_shadow:OK
> Summary: 3/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
>
> Reviewed-by: Jiang Biao <benbjiang@tencent.com>
> Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong <imagedong@tencent.com>
> ---
>  net/bpf/test_run.c                            | 30 +++++++++++++++-
>  .../testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_test.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++
>  .../testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fexit_test.c  | 35 +++++++++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 98 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/bpf/test_run.c b/net/bpf/test_run.c
> index c73f246a706f..e12a72311eca 100644
> --- a/net/bpf/test_run.c
> +++ b/net/bpf/test_run.c
> @@ -536,6 +536,27 @@ int noinline bpf_fentry_test6(u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, void *e, u64 f)
>         return a + (long)b + c + d + (long)e + f;
>  }
>
> +noinline int bpf_fentry_test7(u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, void *e,
> +                             u64 f, u64 g)
> +{
> +       return a + (long)b + c + d + (long)e + f + g;
> +}
> +
> +noinline int bpf_fentry_test12(u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, void *e,
> +                              u64 f, u64 g, u64 h, u64 i, u64 j,
> +                              u64 k, u64 l)
> +{
> +       return a + (long)b + c + d + (long)e + f + g + h + i + j + k + l;
> +}
> +
> +noinline int bpf_fentry_test14(u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, void *e,
> +                              u64 f, u64 g, u64 h, u64 i, u64 j,
> +                              u64 k, u64 l, u64 m, u64 n)
> +{
> +       return a + (long)b + c + d + (long)e + f + g + h + i + j + k + l +
> +              m + n;
> +}

Please add test func to bpf_testmod instead of here.