All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
To: <ast@fb.com>, <daniel@iogearbox.net>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: <kernel-team@fb.com>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v8 09/10] tools/bpf: add a test for bpf_get_stack with raw tracepoint prog
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2018 00:02:04 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180428070205.1059628-10-yhs@fb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180428070205.1059628-1-yhs@fb.com>

The test attached a raw_tracepoint program to sched/sched_switch.
It tested to get stack for user space, kernel space and user
space with build_id request. It also tested to get user
and kernel stack into the same buffer with back-to-back
bpf_get_stack helper calls.

Whenever the kernel stack is available, the user space
application will check to ensure that the kernel function
for raw_tracepoint ___bpf_prog_run is part of the stack.

Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile               |   4 +-
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_get_stack_rawtp.c | 102 +++++++++++++++++
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c           | 122 +++++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 227 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
 create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_get_stack_rawtp.c

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile
index b64a7a3..9d76218 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile
@@ -32,7 +32,8 @@ TEST_GEN_FILES = test_pkt_access.o test_xdp.o test_l4lb.o test_tcp_estats.o test
 	test_l4lb_noinline.o test_xdp_noinline.o test_stacktrace_map.o \
 	sample_map_ret0.o test_tcpbpf_kern.o test_stacktrace_build_id.o \
 	sockmap_tcp_msg_prog.o connect4_prog.o connect6_prog.o test_adjust_tail.o \
-	test_btf_haskv.o test_btf_nokv.o test_sockmap_kern.o test_tunnel_kern.o
+	test_btf_haskv.o test_btf_nokv.o test_sockmap_kern.o test_tunnel_kern.o \
+	test_get_stack_rawtp.o
 
 # Order correspond to 'make run_tests' order
 TEST_PROGS := test_kmod.sh \
@@ -58,6 +59,7 @@ $(OUTPUT)/test_dev_cgroup: cgroup_helpers.c
 $(OUTPUT)/test_sock: cgroup_helpers.c
 $(OUTPUT)/test_sock_addr: cgroup_helpers.c
 $(OUTPUT)/test_sockmap: cgroup_helpers.c
+$(OUTPUT)/test_progs: trace_helpers.c
 
 .PHONY: force
 
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_get_stack_rawtp.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_get_stack_rawtp.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ba1dcf9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_get_stack_rawtp.c
@@ -0,0 +1,102 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+#include <linux/bpf.h>
+#include "bpf_helpers.h"
+
+/* Permit pretty deep stack traces */
+#define MAX_STACK_RAWTP 100
+struct stack_trace_t {
+	int pid;
+	int kern_stack_size;
+	int user_stack_size;
+	int user_stack_buildid_size;
+	__u64 kern_stack[MAX_STACK_RAWTP];
+	__u64 user_stack[MAX_STACK_RAWTP];
+	struct bpf_stack_build_id user_stack_buildid[MAX_STACK_RAWTP];
+};
+
+struct bpf_map_def SEC("maps") perfmap = {
+	.type = BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERF_EVENT_ARRAY,
+	.key_size = sizeof(int),
+	.value_size = sizeof(__u32),
+	.max_entries = 2,
+};
+
+struct bpf_map_def SEC("maps") stackdata_map = {
+	.type = BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_ARRAY,
+	.key_size = sizeof(__u32),
+	.value_size = sizeof(struct stack_trace_t),
+	.max_entries = 1,
+};
+
+/* Allocate per-cpu space twice the needed. For the code below
+ *   usize = bpf_get_stack(ctx, raw_data, max_len, BPF_F_USER_STACK);
+ *   if (usize < 0)
+ *     return 0;
+ *   ksize = bpf_get_stack(ctx, raw_data + usize, max_len - usize, 0);
+ *
+ * If we have value_size = MAX_STACK_RAWTP * sizeof(__u64),
+ * verifier will complain that access "raw_data + usize"
+ * with size "max_len - usize" may be out of bound.
+ * The maximum "raw_data + usize" is "raw_data + max_len"
+ * and the maximum "max_len - usize" is "max_len", verifier
+ * concludes that the maximum buffer access range is
+ * "raw_data[0...max_len * 2 - 1]" and hence reject the program.
+ *
+ * Doubling the to-be-used max buffer size can fix this verifier
+ * issue and avoid complicated C programming massaging.
+ * This is an acceptable workaround since there is one entry here.
+ */
+struct bpf_map_def SEC("maps") rawdata_map = {
+	.type = BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_ARRAY,
+	.key_size = sizeof(__u32),
+	.value_size = MAX_STACK_RAWTP * sizeof(__u64) * 2,
+	.max_entries = 1,
+};
+
+SEC("tracepoint/sched/sched_switch")
+int bpf_prog1(void *ctx)
+{
+	int max_len, max_buildid_len, usize, ksize, total_size;
+	struct stack_trace_t *data;
+	void *raw_data;
+	__u32 key = 0;
+
+	data = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&stackdata_map, &key);
+	if (!data)
+		return 0;
+
+	max_len = MAX_STACK_RAWTP * sizeof(__u64);
+	max_buildid_len = MAX_STACK_RAWTP * sizeof(struct bpf_stack_build_id);
+	data->pid = bpf_get_current_pid_tgid();
+	data->kern_stack_size = bpf_get_stack(ctx, data->kern_stack,
+					      max_len, 0);
+	data->user_stack_size = bpf_get_stack(ctx, data->user_stack, max_len,
+					    BPF_F_USER_STACK);
+	data->user_stack_buildid_size = bpf_get_stack(
+		ctx, data->user_stack_buildid, max_buildid_len,
+		BPF_F_USER_STACK | BPF_F_USER_BUILD_ID);
+	bpf_perf_event_output(ctx, &perfmap, 0, data, sizeof(*data));
+
+	/* write both kernel and user stacks to the same buffer */
+	raw_data = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&rawdata_map, &key);
+	if (!raw_data)
+		return 0;
+
+	usize = bpf_get_stack(ctx, raw_data, max_len, BPF_F_USER_STACK);
+	if (usize < 0)
+		return 0;
+
+	ksize = bpf_get_stack(ctx, raw_data + usize, max_len - usize, 0);
+	if (ksize < 0)
+		return 0;
+
+	total_size = usize + ksize;
+	if (total_size > 0 && total_size <= max_len)
+		bpf_perf_event_output(ctx, &perfmap, 0, raw_data, total_size);
+
+	return 0;
+}
+
+char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
+__u32 _version SEC("version") = 1; /* ignored by tracepoints, required by libbpf.a */
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c
index eedda98..c148a55 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c
@@ -38,6 +38,7 @@ typedef __u16 __sum16;
 #include "bpf_util.h"
 #include "bpf_endian.h"
 #include "bpf_rlimit.h"
+#include "trace_helpers.h"
 
 static int error_cnt, pass_cnt;
 
@@ -1204,6 +1205,126 @@ static void test_stacktrace_build_id(void)
 	return;
 }
 
+#define MAX_CNT_RAWTP	10ull
+#define MAX_STACK_RAWTP	100
+struct get_stack_trace_t {
+	int pid;
+	int kern_stack_size;
+	int user_stack_size;
+	int user_stack_buildid_size;
+	__u64 kern_stack[MAX_STACK_RAWTP];
+	__u64 user_stack[MAX_STACK_RAWTP];
+	struct bpf_stack_build_id user_stack_buildid[MAX_STACK_RAWTP];
+};
+
+static void get_stack_raw_tp_action(void)
+{
+	FILE *f;
+
+	f = popen("taskset 1 dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/null", "r");
+	(void) f;
+}
+
+static int get_stack_print_output(void *data, int size)
+{
+	bool good_kern_stack = false, good_user_stack = false;
+	const char *expected_func = "___bpf_prog_run";
+	struct get_stack_trace_t *e = data;
+	int i, num_stack;
+	static __u64 cnt;
+	struct ksym *ks;
+
+	cnt++;
+
+	if (size < sizeof(struct get_stack_trace_t)) {
+		__u64 *raw_data = data;
+
+		num_stack = size / sizeof(__u64);
+		for (i = 0; i < num_stack; i++) {
+			ks = ksym_search(raw_data[i]);
+			if (ks && (strcmp(ks->name, expected_func) == 0)) {
+				good_kern_stack = true;
+				good_user_stack = (i > 0);
+			}
+		}
+	} else {
+		if (e->kern_stack_size > 0) {
+			num_stack = e->kern_stack_size / sizeof(__u64);
+			for (i = 0; i < num_stack; i++) {
+				ks = ksym_search(e->kern_stack[i]);
+				if (ks && (strcmp(ks->name, expected_func) == 0))
+					good_kern_stack = true;
+			}
+		}
+		if (e->user_stack_size > 0 && e->user_stack_buildid_size > 0)
+			good_user_stack = true;
+	}
+	if (!good_kern_stack || !good_user_stack)
+		return PERF_EVENT_ERROR;
+
+	if (cnt == MAX_CNT_RAWTP)
+		return PERF_EVENT_DONE;
+
+	return PERF_EVENT_CONT;
+}
+
+static void test_get_stack_raw_tp(void)
+{
+	const char *file = "./test_get_stack_rawtp.o";
+	int efd, err, prog_fd, pmu_fd, perfmap_fd;
+	struct perf_event_attr attr = {};
+	__u32 key = 0, duration = 0;
+	struct bpf_object *obj;
+
+	err = bpf_prog_load(file, BPF_PROG_TYPE_RAW_TRACEPOINT, &obj, &prog_fd);
+	if (CHECK(err, "prog_load raw tp", "err %d errno %d\n", err, errno))
+		return;
+
+	efd = bpf_raw_tracepoint_open("sched_switch", prog_fd);
+	if (CHECK(efd < 0, "raw_tp_open", "err %d errno %d\n", efd, errno))
+		goto close_prog;
+
+	perfmap_fd = bpf_find_map(__func__, obj, "perfmap");
+	if (CHECK(perfmap_fd < 0, "bpf_find_map", "err %d errno %d\n",
+		  perfmap_fd, errno))
+		goto close_prog;
+
+	err = load_kallsyms();
+	if (CHECK(err < 0, "load_kallsyms", "err %d errno %d\n", err, errno))
+		goto close_prog;
+
+	attr.sample_type = PERF_SAMPLE_RAW;
+	attr.type = PERF_TYPE_SOFTWARE;
+	attr.config = PERF_COUNT_SW_BPF_OUTPUT;
+	pmu_fd = syscall(__NR_perf_event_open, &attr, -1/*pid*/, 0/*cpu*/,
+			 -1/*group_fd*/, 0);
+	if (CHECK(pmu_fd < 0, "perf_event_open", "err %d errno %d\n", pmu_fd,
+		  errno))
+		goto close_prog;
+
+	err = bpf_map_update_elem(perfmap_fd, &key, &pmu_fd, BPF_ANY);
+	if (CHECK(err < 0, "bpf_map_update_elem", "err %d errno %d\n", err,
+		  errno))
+		goto close_prog;
+
+	err = ioctl(pmu_fd, PERF_EVENT_IOC_ENABLE, 0);
+	if (CHECK(err < 0, "ioctl PERF_EVENT_IOC_ENABLE", "err %d errno %d\n",
+		  err, errno))
+		goto close_prog;
+
+	err = perf_event_poller(pmu_fd, get_stack_raw_tp_action,
+				get_stack_print_output);
+	if (CHECK(err < 0, "perf_event_poller", "err %d errno %d\n", err,
+		  errno))
+		goto close_prog;
+
+	goto close_prog_noerr;
+close_prog:
+	error_cnt++;
+close_prog_noerr:
+	bpf_object__close(obj);
+}
+
 int main(void)
 {
 	test_pkt_access();
@@ -1219,6 +1340,7 @@ int main(void)
 	test_stacktrace_map();
 	test_stacktrace_build_id();
 	test_stacktrace_map_raw_tp();
+	test_get_stack_raw_tp();
 
 	printf("Summary: %d PASSED, %d FAILED\n", pass_cnt, error_cnt);
 	return error_cnt ? EXIT_FAILURE : EXIT_SUCCESS;
-- 
2.9.5

  parent reply	other threads:[~2018-04-28  7:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-04-28  7:01 [PATCH bpf-next v8 00/10] bpf: add bpf_get_stack helper Yonghong Song
2018-04-28  7:01 ` [PATCH bpf-next v8 01/10] bpf: change prototype for stack_map_get_build_id_offset Yonghong Song
2018-04-28  7:01 ` [PATCH bpf-next v8 02/10] bpf: add bpf_get_stack helper Yonghong Song
2018-04-28  7:01 ` [PATCH bpf-next v8 03/10] bpf/verifier: refine retval R0 state for " Yonghong Song
2018-04-28  7:01 ` [PATCH bpf-next v8 04/10] bpf: remove never-hit branches in verifier adjust_scalar_min_max_vals Yonghong Song
2018-04-28  7:02 ` [PATCH bpf-next v8 05/10] bpf/verifier: improve register value range tracking with ARSH Yonghong Song
2018-04-28 16:52   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2018-04-28  7:02 ` [PATCH bpf-next v8 06/10] tools/bpf: add bpf_get_stack helper to tools headers Yonghong Song
2018-04-28  7:02 ` [PATCH bpf-next v8 07/10] samples/bpf: move common-purpose trace functions to selftests Yonghong Song
2018-04-28  7:02 ` [PATCH bpf-next v8 08/10] tools/bpf: add a verifier test case for bpf_get_stack helper and ARSH Yonghong Song
2018-04-28  7:02 ` Yonghong Song [this message]
2018-04-28 16:56   ` [PATCH bpf-next v8 09/10] tools/bpf: add a test for bpf_get_stack with raw tracepoint prog Alexei Starovoitov
2018-04-28 18:17     ` Y Song
2018-04-28 19:06       ` Alexei Starovoitov
2018-04-28 20:02         ` Yonghong Song
2018-04-28  7:02 ` [PATCH bpf-next v8 10/10] tools/bpf: add a test for bpf_get_stack with " Yonghong Song

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=20180428070205.1059628-10-yhs@fb.com \
    --to=yhs@fb.com \
    --cc=ast@fb.com \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    /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 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.