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 D1372C433EF for ; Tue, 7 Dec 2021 18:14:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231572AbhLGSSD (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Dec 2021 13:18:03 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]:32589 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231221AbhLGSSD (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Dec 2021 13:18:03 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1638900872; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=RtlB+q2yXh5ebvFEGBR9G9xtBgb8a+zDj7VKXAAjuUU=; b=W5G9pViddUlOB1n4MJO+Y81C9STZRjWbGnwlUumYEGxYZQv0/lafdCVz1tZGvQxRn6b22n O6+9l1wKGjchyXxixAHNeixaj0sPKwjK9zI0w2z3PrEvEYwMo0qHWKcuUoJij81NWLrCzs 94QfvoQ2qo4c2GRbrznKG5jv5nIYpF4= Received: from mail-ed1-f69.google.com (mail-ed1-f69.google.com [209.85.208.69]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-402-AqlM82mFMz2LWJ83n4ZyYw-1; Tue, 07 Dec 2021 13:14:30 -0500 X-MC-Unique: AqlM82mFMz2LWJ83n4ZyYw-1 Received: by mail-ed1-f69.google.com with SMTP id l15-20020a056402124f00b003e57269ab87so12141296edw.6 for ; Tue, 07 Dec 2021 10:14:30 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=RtlB+q2yXh5ebvFEGBR9G9xtBgb8a+zDj7VKXAAjuUU=; b=aW11+A0AWy9TogtDx/11L+uR7TrgoE5NTyAOhKXLc12wXSiOvMnn6Dxd31nzoGTJNO 5KdU2UPRigtbU/OkmU2bgY1wpzGL8pL/OK7TJ89By4inYqIQH+5PyYR6M1yhLA/V0nT0 wzmCjHSI4xFEPiP8Z+h13SUyDfzOyGQcUWG1nY/KdCd/C+j1VptZkb7dnzgkyRw2wgYm rx38+4K2CNSKeM6OLAOUyL+7mAXYVw1IizzGXZfc84ueCdK3gL/Aapre01hjwGwsv/0I Y7vNorom4Mb44qbyA6XB0YqN8/+lxHXRVdMZQBqiE/8NTKV0O/kQoZrSclX22fdGDk1W g+Dg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533JBu5Fx+NMU1QPRsT8mufC0Mn8wDTIXiGPImrmvUn+KLZKFLAJ 4vFa+KXpoYjKxEgQnf5yXmwbirzXyrk1tYjxJw2qlIjswAql39bqjtm8yW0bnJu6r7qyI9fpWoV Fw8gJ+Mpaadxp X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:50c6:: with SMTP id h6mr11090596edb.228.1638900869703; Tue, 07 Dec 2021 10:14:29 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJztv0/R/GP2WdIu+4Ybks24SMSx8TdzLXm/jkvJgv6Vbx5rweFpsJt5IDCgQjGCe9yB8U9hVg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:50c6:: with SMTP id h6mr11090558edb.228.1638900869444; Tue, 07 Dec 2021 10:14:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from krava (nat-pool-brq-u.redhat.com. [213.175.37.12]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r13sm315655edo.71.2021.12.07.10.14.28 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 07 Dec 2021 10:14:29 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2021 19:14:27 +0100 From: Jiri Olsa To: Andrii Nakryiko Cc: Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, Martin KaFai Lau , Song Liu , Yonghong Song , John Fastabend , KP Singh , andrii@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 3/3] selftests/bpf: Add tests for get_func_[arg|ret|arg_cnt] helpers Message-ID: References: <20211204140700.396138-1-jolsa@kernel.org> <20211204140700.396138-4-jolsa@kernel.org> <7df54ca3-1bae-4d54-e30f-c2474c48ede0@fb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7df54ca3-1bae-4d54-e30f-c2474c48ede0@fb.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org 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 > > > > + > > + /* 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