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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F048DC433EF for ; Tue, 7 Dec 2021 22:54:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233920AbhLGW6Q (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Dec 2021 17:58:16 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:53668 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229790AbhLGW6Q (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Dec 2021 17:58:16 -0500 Received: from mail-yb1-xb2d.google.com (mail-yb1-xb2d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2d]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8ED88C061574; Tue, 7 Dec 2021 14:54:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-yb1-xb2d.google.com with SMTP id f9so1479226ybq.10; Tue, 07 Dec 2021 14:54:45 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=KIUT20NJGyEzKpPlf+Kj5bOvgKjOQpWqtgUjoQeoVpY=; b=bCl5TPUDim/CaOSCDir1lhcVCnE+UMPLzZV+nHMXhJMMTZJiZme6nKV3cL1cRZ12vl hWxWcCe9VUP25J7DPFwcuZTeV8MGECaj8BKZYlOKy+wFFZAc6QklxbPNbBnycMfurCQJ MTqXW7BPtMIX+6C8erBWSfZ4oCnRq3cnpJceUujixR3llVpg4Ww81483gN2xLaz2M++s p1nO/Uly7SzfDm2NlfeH2aOPQlUcylCdQq1viaCedZ1DrjmbxVafQQoAvjcjTSCJROuV 8y6VBtOPXUijFlKDdxnV1gkwl4JyBCBXjHQ8bEuDd+27UtsrfrYHUFEAy2izPmPidYk9 6Ifw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=KIUT20NJGyEzKpPlf+Kj5bOvgKjOQpWqtgUjoQeoVpY=; b=Uj3HuvPx+z+E+lbyl+I6Zs3metlTzC8lQdnqrByWgzzTuJMVPS1EDR4JORpiK2BM0Q 4/7fhG6BBk6A2pxH3Rg8Uq9lWzvXXe3b3Ru+x5FpwCInTi5hqKqKh6+QydCAeRf4pGcz 2OPNH4F2XNXxm8WcnwdLLpSg329BMy+4QVjTUONARnadK0AbcwCpUistXjJcOEq3XQpq ysryg3AdsVdYJcoJuXekMgZfNqK3O5U9xnWEeeRzKPl9jbvdGicB9NVObeYweF+j5bir mo+tpMItF4zZslpcCnSwltJHD53VHnkap3DrKYFJnJoL075zbo5B67H74I9nyrtboixq pu/w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532SvG2rMDeS21h8pL0nYTAE6Y1emoC9BqdLXcfpKQ7qOIlRWI92 8fwdaIeQE2xWlnEas2WZXVgbdbMqSggumkcKlM8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzg3gooPAKHVdMOpJLG8/YYxFysuOPPxmJz4m5qhFLTw4VSIN50Bc5gVLRQBVninGN35SeahmfG/tMjR7MRxpQ= X-Received: by 2002:a25:e406:: with SMTP id b6mr55301906ybh.529.1638917684832; Tue, 07 Dec 2021 14:54:44 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20211204140700.396138-1-jolsa@kernel.org> <20211204140700.396138-4-jolsa@kernel.org> <7df54ca3-1bae-4d54-e30f-c2474c48ede0@fb.com> In-Reply-To: From: Andrii Nakryiko Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2021 14:54:33 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 3/3] selftests/bpf: Add tests for get_func_[arg|ret|arg_cnt] helpers To: Jiri Olsa Cc: Andrii Nakryiko , Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , Networking , bpf , Martin KaFai Lau , Song Liu , Yonghong Song , John Fastabend , KP Singh , Andrii Nakryiko Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 10:14 AM Jiri Olsa wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 02:03:54PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > > > On 12/4/21 6:07 AM, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > > Adding tests for get_func_[arg|ret|arg_cnt] helpers. > > > Using these helpers in fentry/fexit/fmod_ret programs. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa > > > --- > > > .../bpf/prog_tests/get_func_args_test.c | 38 ++++++ > > > .../selftests/bpf/progs/get_func_args_test.c | 112 ++++++++++++++++++ > > > 2 files changed, 150 insertions(+) > > > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/get_func_args_test.c > > > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/get_func_args_test.c > > > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/get_func_args_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/get_func_args_test.c > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 000000000000..c24807ae4361 > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/get_func_args_test.c > > > @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@ > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > > +#include > > > +#include "get_func_args_test.skel.h" > > > + > > > +void test_get_func_args_test(void) > > > +{ > > > + struct get_func_args_test *skel = NULL; > > > + __u32 duration = 0, retval; > > > + int err, prog_fd; > > > + > > > + skel = get_func_args_test__open_and_load(); > > > + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "get_func_args_test__open_and_load")) > > > + return; > > > + > > > + err = get_func_args_test__attach(skel); > > > + if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "get_func_args_test__attach")) > > > + goto cleanup; > > > + > > > + prog_fd = bpf_program__fd(skel->progs.test1); > > > + err = bpf_prog_test_run(prog_fd, 1, NULL, 0, > > > + NULL, NULL, &retval, &duration); > > > + ASSERT_OK(err, "test_run"); > > > + ASSERT_EQ(retval, 0, "test_run"); > > > + > > > + prog_fd = bpf_program__fd(skel->progs.fmod_ret_test); > > > + err = bpf_prog_test_run(prog_fd, 1, NULL, 0, > > > + NULL, NULL, &retval, &duration); > > > + ASSERT_OK(err, "test_run"); > > > + ASSERT_EQ(retval, 1234, "test_run"); > > > > > > are the other two programs executed implicitly during one of those test > > runs? Can you please leave a small comment somewhere here if that's true? > > test1 triggers all the bpf_fentry_test* fentry/fexits > fmod_ret_test triggers the rest, I'll put it in comment > > > > > > > > + > > > + ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->test1_result, 1, "test1_result"); > > > + ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->test2_result, 1, "test2_result"); > > > + ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->test3_result, 1, "test3_result"); > > > + ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->test4_result, 1, "test4_result"); > > > + > > > +cleanup: > > > + get_func_args_test__destroy(skel); > > > +} > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/get_func_args_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/get_func_args_test.c > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 000000000000..0d0a67c849ae > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/get_func_args_test.c > > > @@ -0,0 +1,112 @@ > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > > +#include > > > +#include > > > +#include > > > +#include > > > + > > > +char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL"; > > > + > > > +__u64 test1_result = 0; > > > +SEC("fentry/bpf_fentry_test1") > > > +int BPF_PROG(test1) > > > +{ > > > + __u64 cnt = bpf_get_func_arg_cnt(ctx); > > > + __u64 a = 0, z = 0, ret = 0; > > > + __s64 err; > > > + > > > + test1_result = cnt == 1; > > > + > > > + /* valid arguments */ > > > + err = bpf_get_func_arg(ctx, 0, &a); > > > + test1_result &= err == 0 && (int) a == 1; > > > > > > int cast unnecessary? but some ()'s wouldn't hurt... > > it is, 'a' is int and trampoline saves it with 32-bit register like: > > mov %edi,-0x8(%rbp) > > so the upper 4 bytes are not zeroed oh, this is definitely worth a comment, it's quite a big gotcha we'll need to remember > > > > > > > > + > > > + /* not valid argument */ > > > + err = bpf_get_func_arg(ctx, 1, &z); > > > + test1_result &= err == -EINVAL; > > > + > > > + /* return value fails in fentry */ > > > + err = bpf_get_func_ret(ctx, &ret); > > > + test1_result &= err == -EINVAL; > > > + return 0; > > > +} > > > + > > > +__u64 test2_result = 0; > > > +SEC("fexit/bpf_fentry_test2") > > > +int BPF_PROG(test2) > > > +{ > > > + __u64 cnt = bpf_get_func_arg_cnt(ctx); > > > + __u64 a = 0, b = 0, z = 0, ret = 0; > > > + __s64 err; > > > + > > > + test2_result = cnt == 2; > > > + > > > + /* valid arguments */ > > > + err = bpf_get_func_arg(ctx, 0, &a); > > > + test2_result &= err == 0 && (int) a == 2; > > > + > > > + err = bpf_get_func_arg(ctx, 1, &b); > > > + test2_result &= err == 0 && b == 3; > > > + > > > + /* not valid argument */ > > > + err = bpf_get_func_arg(ctx, 2, &z); > > > + test2_result &= err == -EINVAL; > > > + > > > + /* return value */ > > > + err = bpf_get_func_ret(ctx, &ret); > > > + test2_result &= err == 0 && ret == 5; > > > + return 0; > > > +} > > > + > > > +__u64 test3_result = 0; > > > +SEC("fmod_ret/bpf_modify_return_test") > > > +int BPF_PROG(fmod_ret_test, int _a, int *_b, int _ret) > > > +{ > > > + __u64 cnt = bpf_get_func_arg_cnt(ctx); > > > + __u64 a = 0, b = 0, z = 0, ret = 0; > > > + __s64 err; > > > + > > > + test3_result = cnt == 2; > > > + > > > + /* valid arguments */ > > > + err = bpf_get_func_arg(ctx, 0, &a); > > > + test3_result &= err == 0 && (int) a == 1; > > > + > > > + err = bpf_get_func_arg(ctx, 1, &b); > > > + test3_result &= err == 0; > > > > > > why no checking of b value here? > > right, ok > > > > > > + > > > + /* not valid argument */ > > > + err = bpf_get_func_arg(ctx, 2, &z); > > > + test3_result &= err == -EINVAL; > > > + > > > + /* return value */ > > > + err = bpf_get_func_ret(ctx, &ret); > > > + test3_result &= err == 0 && ret == 0; > > > + return 1234; > > > +} > > > + > > > +__u64 test4_result = 0; > > > +SEC("fexit/bpf_modify_return_test") > > > +int BPF_PROG(fexit_test, int _a, __u64 _b, int _ret) > > > +{ > > > + __u64 cnt = bpf_get_func_arg_cnt(ctx); > > > + __u64 a = 0, b = 0, z = 0, ret = 0; > > > + __s64 err; > > > + > > > + test4_result = cnt == 2; > > > + > > > + /* valid arguments */ > > > + err = bpf_get_func_arg(ctx, 0, &a); > > > + test4_result &= err == 0 && (int) a == 1; > > > + > > > + err = bpf_get_func_arg(ctx, 1, &b); > > > + test4_result &= err == 0; > > > > > > same, for consistency, b should have been checked, no? > > ok > > thanks, > jirka >