Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/4] selftests/bpf: Add negative C tests for kptrs

[Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>]

On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 12:46 PM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
<memxor@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This uses the newly added SEC("?foo") naming to disable autoload of
> programs, and then loads them one by one for the object and verifies
> that loading fails and matches the returned error string from verifier.
> This is similar to already existing verifier tests but provides coverage
> for BPF C.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
> ---
>  .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/map_kptr.c       |  87 +++-
>  .../selftests/bpf/progs/map_kptr_fail.c       | 418 ++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 504 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/map_kptr_fail.c
>

[...]

> +
> +static void test_map_kptr_success(void)
>  {
>         struct map_kptr *skel;
>         int key = 0, ret;
> @@ -35,3 +113,10 @@ void test_map_kptr(void)
>
>         map_kptr__destroy(skel);
>  }
> +
> +void test_map_kptr(void)
> +{
> +       if (test__start_subtest("success"))
> +               test_map_kptr_success();
> +       test_map_kptr_fail();

I think the intent for this was to be another subtest, right? Worth
fixing in a follow up?

> +}
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/map_kptr_fail.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/map_kptr_fail.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..05e209b1b12a
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/map_kptr_fail.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,418 @@

[...]