* [PATCH bpf-next v4 0/4] introduce dummy BPF STRUCT_OPS
@ 2021-10-25 6:40 Hou Tao
2021-10-25 6:40 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 1/4] bpf: factor out a helper to prepare trampoline for struct_ops prog Hou Tao
` (4 more replies)
0 siblings, 5 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Hou Tao @ 2021-10-25 6:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexei Starovoitov
Cc: Martin KaFai Lau, Yonghong Song, Daniel Borkmann,
Andrii Nakryiko, netdev, bpf, houtao1
Hi,
Currently the test of BPF STRUCT_OPS depends on the specific bpf
implementation (e.g, tcp_congestion_ops), but it can not cover all
basic functionalities (e.g, return value handling), so introduce
a dummy BPF STRUCT_OPS for test purpose.
Instead of loading a userspace-implemeted bpf_dummy_ops map into
kernel and calling the specific function by writing to sysfs provided
by bpf_testmode.ko, only loading bpf_dummy_ops related prog into
kernel and calling these prog by bpf_prog_test_run(). The latter
is more flexible and has no dependency on extra kernel module.
Now the return value handling is supported by test_1(...) ops,
and passing multiple arguments is supported by test_2(...) ops.
If more is needed, test_x(...) ops can be added afterwards.
Comments are always welcome.
Regards,
Hou
Change Log:
v4:
* add Acked-by tags in patch 1~4
* patch 2: remove unncessary comments and update commit message
accordingly
* patch 4: remove unnecessary nr checking in dummy_ops_init_args()
v3: https://www.spinics.net/lists/bpf/msg48303.html
* rebase on bpf-next
* address comments for Martin, mainly include: merge patch 3 &
patch 4 in v2, fix names of btf ctx access check helpers,
handle CONFIG_NET, fix leak in dummy_ops_init_args(), and
simplify bpf_dummy_init()
* patch 4: use a loop to check args in test_dummy_multiple_args()
v2: https://www.spinics.net/lists/bpf/msg47948.html
* rebase on bpf-next
* add test_2(...) ops to test the passing of multiple arguments
* a new patch (patch #2) is added to factor out ctx access helpers
* address comments from Martin & Andrii
v1: https://www.spinics.net/lists/bpf/msg46787.html
RFC: https://www.spinics.net/lists/bpf/msg46117.html
Hou Tao (4):
bpf: factor out a helper to prepare trampoline for struct_ops prog
bpf: factor out helpers for ctx access checking
bpf: add dummy BPF STRUCT_OPS for test purpose
selftests/bpf: add test cases for struct_ops prog
include/linux/bpf.h | 43 ++++
kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c | 32 ++-
kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops_types.h | 3 +
kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 16 +-
net/bpf/Makefile | 3 +
net/bpf/bpf_dummy_struct_ops.c | 200 ++++++++++++++++++
net/ipv4/bpf_tcp_ca.c | 9 +-
.../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/dummy_st_ops.c | 115 ++++++++++
.../selftests/bpf/progs/dummy_st_ops.c | 50 +++++
9 files changed, 439 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 net/bpf/bpf_dummy_struct_ops.c
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/dummy_st_ops.c
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/dummy_st_ops.c
--
2.29.2
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH bpf-next v4 1/4] bpf: factor out a helper to prepare trampoline for struct_ops prog
2021-10-25 6:40 [PATCH bpf-next v4 0/4] introduce dummy BPF STRUCT_OPS Hou Tao
@ 2021-10-25 6:40 ` Hou Tao
2021-10-25 6:40 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 2/4] bpf: factor out helpers for ctx access checking Hou Tao
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Hou Tao @ 2021-10-25 6:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexei Starovoitov
Cc: Martin KaFai Lau, Yonghong Song, Daniel Borkmann,
Andrii Nakryiko, netdev, bpf, houtao1
Factor out a helper bpf_struct_ops_prepare_trampoline() to prepare
trampoline for BPF_PROG_TYPE_STRUCT_OPS prog. It will be used by
.test_run callback in following patch.
Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com>
Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
---
include/linux/bpf.h | 4 ++++
kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++----------
2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
index 31421c74ba08..3d2cf94a72ce 100644
--- a/include/linux/bpf.h
+++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
@@ -999,6 +999,10 @@ bool bpf_struct_ops_get(const void *kdata);
void bpf_struct_ops_put(const void *kdata);
int bpf_struct_ops_map_sys_lookup_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key,
void *value);
+int bpf_struct_ops_prepare_trampoline(struct bpf_tramp_progs *tprogs,
+ struct bpf_prog *prog,
+ const struct btf_func_model *model,
+ void *image, void *image_end);
static inline bool bpf_try_module_get(const void *data, struct module *owner)
{
if (owner == BPF_MODULE_OWNER)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c b/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c
index 9abcc33f02cf..44be101f2562 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c
@@ -312,6 +312,20 @@ static int check_zero_holes(const struct btf_type *t, void *data)
return 0;
}
+int bpf_struct_ops_prepare_trampoline(struct bpf_tramp_progs *tprogs,
+ struct bpf_prog *prog,
+ const struct btf_func_model *model,
+ void *image, void *image_end)
+{
+ u32 flags;
+
+ tprogs[BPF_TRAMP_FENTRY].progs[0] = prog;
+ tprogs[BPF_TRAMP_FENTRY].nr_progs = 1;
+ flags = model->ret_size > 0 ? BPF_TRAMP_F_RET_FENTRY_RET : 0;
+ return arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline(NULL, image, image_end,
+ model, flags, tprogs, NULL);
+}
+
static int bpf_struct_ops_map_update_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key,
void *value, u64 flags)
{
@@ -323,7 +337,7 @@ static int bpf_struct_ops_map_update_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key,
struct bpf_tramp_progs *tprogs = NULL;
void *udata, *kdata;
int prog_fd, err = 0;
- void *image;
+ void *image, *image_end;
u32 i;
if (flags)
@@ -363,12 +377,12 @@ static int bpf_struct_ops_map_update_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key,
udata = &uvalue->data;
kdata = &kvalue->data;
image = st_map->image;
+ image_end = st_map->image + PAGE_SIZE;
for_each_member(i, t, member) {
const struct btf_type *mtype, *ptype;
struct bpf_prog *prog;
u32 moff;
- u32 flags;
moff = btf_member_bit_offset(t, member) / 8;
ptype = btf_type_resolve_ptr(btf_vmlinux, member->type, NULL);
@@ -430,14 +444,9 @@ static int bpf_struct_ops_map_update_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key,
goto reset_unlock;
}
- tprogs[BPF_TRAMP_FENTRY].progs[0] = prog;
- tprogs[BPF_TRAMP_FENTRY].nr_progs = 1;
- flags = st_ops->func_models[i].ret_size > 0 ?
- BPF_TRAMP_F_RET_FENTRY_RET : 0;
- err = arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline(NULL, image,
- st_map->image + PAGE_SIZE,
- &st_ops->func_models[i],
- flags, tprogs, NULL);
+ err = bpf_struct_ops_prepare_trampoline(tprogs, prog,
+ &st_ops->func_models[i],
+ image, image_end);
if (err < 0)
goto reset_unlock;
--
2.29.2
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH bpf-next v4 2/4] bpf: factor out helpers for ctx access checking
2021-10-25 6:40 [PATCH bpf-next v4 0/4] introduce dummy BPF STRUCT_OPS Hou Tao
2021-10-25 6:40 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 1/4] bpf: factor out a helper to prepare trampoline for struct_ops prog Hou Tao
@ 2021-10-25 6:40 ` Hou Tao
2021-10-25 6:40 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 3/4] bpf: add dummy BPF STRUCT_OPS for test purpose Hou Tao
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Hou Tao @ 2021-10-25 6:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexei Starovoitov
Cc: Martin KaFai Lau, Yonghong Song, Daniel Borkmann,
Andrii Nakryiko, netdev, bpf, houtao1
Factor out two helpers to check the read access of ctx for raw tp
and BTF function. bpf_tracing_ctx_access() is used to check
the read access to argument is valid, and bpf_tracing_btf_ctx_access()
checks whether the btf type of argument is valid besides the checking
of argument read. bpf_tracing_btf_ctx_access() will be used by the
following patch.
Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com>
Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
---
include/linux/bpf.h | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 16 ++--------------
net/ipv4/bpf_tcp_ca.c | 9 +--------
3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
index 3d2cf94a72ce..d986e2cc2498 100644
--- a/include/linux/bpf.h
+++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
@@ -1649,6 +1649,29 @@ bool bpf_prog_test_check_kfunc_call(u32 kfunc_id, struct module *owner);
bool btf_ctx_access(int off, int size, enum bpf_access_type type,
const struct bpf_prog *prog,
struct bpf_insn_access_aux *info);
+
+static inline bool bpf_tracing_ctx_access(int off, int size,
+ enum bpf_access_type type)
+{
+ if (off < 0 || off >= sizeof(__u64) * MAX_BPF_FUNC_ARGS)
+ return false;
+ if (type != BPF_READ)
+ return false;
+ if (off % size != 0)
+ return false;
+ return true;
+}
+
+static inline bool bpf_tracing_btf_ctx_access(int off, int size,
+ enum bpf_access_type type,
+ const struct bpf_prog *prog,
+ struct bpf_insn_access_aux *info)
+{
+ if (!bpf_tracing_ctx_access(off, size, type))
+ return false;
+ return btf_ctx_access(off, size, type, prog, info);
+}
+
int btf_struct_access(struct bpf_verifier_log *log, const struct btf *btf,
const struct btf_type *t, int off, int size,
enum bpf_access_type atype,
diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
index cbcd0d6fca7c..7396488793ff 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
@@ -1646,13 +1646,7 @@ static bool raw_tp_prog_is_valid_access(int off, int size,
const struct bpf_prog *prog,
struct bpf_insn_access_aux *info)
{
- if (off < 0 || off >= sizeof(__u64) * MAX_BPF_FUNC_ARGS)
- return false;
- if (type != BPF_READ)
- return false;
- if (off % size != 0)
- return false;
- return true;
+ return bpf_tracing_ctx_access(off, size, type);
}
static bool tracing_prog_is_valid_access(int off, int size,
@@ -1660,13 +1654,7 @@ static bool tracing_prog_is_valid_access(int off, int size,
const struct bpf_prog *prog,
struct bpf_insn_access_aux *info)
{
- if (off < 0 || off >= sizeof(__u64) * MAX_BPF_FUNC_ARGS)
- return false;
- if (type != BPF_READ)
- return false;
- if (off % size != 0)
- return false;
- return btf_ctx_access(off, size, type, prog, info);
+ return bpf_tracing_btf_ctx_access(off, size, type, prog, info);
}
int __weak bpf_prog_test_run_tracing(struct bpf_prog *prog,
diff --git a/net/ipv4/bpf_tcp_ca.c b/net/ipv4/bpf_tcp_ca.c
index 57709ac09fb2..2cf02b4d77fb 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/bpf_tcp_ca.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/bpf_tcp_ca.c
@@ -81,14 +81,7 @@ static bool bpf_tcp_ca_is_valid_access(int off, int size,
const struct bpf_prog *prog,
struct bpf_insn_access_aux *info)
{
- if (off < 0 || off >= sizeof(__u64) * MAX_BPF_FUNC_ARGS)
- return false;
- if (type != BPF_READ)
- return false;
- if (off % size != 0)
- return false;
-
- if (!btf_ctx_access(off, size, type, prog, info))
+ if (!bpf_tracing_btf_ctx_access(off, size, type, prog, info))
return false;
if (info->reg_type == PTR_TO_BTF_ID && info->btf_id == sock_id)
--
2.29.2
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH bpf-next v4 3/4] bpf: add dummy BPF STRUCT_OPS for test purpose
2021-10-25 6:40 [PATCH bpf-next v4 0/4] introduce dummy BPF STRUCT_OPS Hou Tao
2021-10-25 6:40 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 1/4] bpf: factor out a helper to prepare trampoline for struct_ops prog Hou Tao
2021-10-25 6:40 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 2/4] bpf: factor out helpers for ctx access checking Hou Tao
@ 2021-10-25 6:40 ` Hou Tao
2021-10-25 6:40 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 4/4] selftests/bpf: add test cases for struct_ops prog Hou Tao
2021-10-29 10:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 0/4] introduce dummy BPF STRUCT_OPS Hou Tao
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Hou Tao @ 2021-10-25 6:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexei Starovoitov
Cc: Martin KaFai Lau, Yonghong Song, Daniel Borkmann,
Andrii Nakryiko, netdev, bpf, houtao1
Currently the test of BPF STRUCT_OPS depends on the specific bpf
implementation of tcp_congestion_ops, but it can not cover all
basic functionalities (e.g, return value handling), so introduce
a dummy BPF STRUCT_OPS for test purpose.
Loading a bpf_dummy_ops implementation from userspace is prohibited,
and its only purpose is to run BPF_PROG_TYPE_STRUCT_OPS program
through bpf(BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN). Now programs for test_1() & test_2()
are supported. The following three cases are exercised in
bpf_dummy_struct_ops_test_run():
(1) test and check the value returned from state arg in test_1(state)
The content of state is copied from userspace pointer and copied back
after calling test_1(state). The user pointer is saved in an u64 array
and the array address is passed through ctx_in.
(2) test and check the return value of test_1(NULL)
Just simulate the case in which an invalid input argument is passed in.
(3) test multiple arguments passing in test_2(state, ...)
5 arguments are passed through ctx_in in form of u64 array. The first
element of array is userspace pointer of state and others 4 arguments
follow.
Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com>
Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
---
include/linux/bpf.h | 16 +++
kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c | 3 +
kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops_types.h | 3 +
net/bpf/Makefile | 3 +
net/bpf/bpf_dummy_struct_ops.c | 200 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
5 files changed, 225 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 net/bpf/bpf_dummy_struct_ops.c
diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
index d986e2cc2498..51a85b6e987e 100644
--- a/include/linux/bpf.h
+++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
@@ -1017,6 +1017,22 @@ static inline void bpf_module_put(const void *data, struct module *owner)
else
module_put(owner);
}
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_NET
+/* Define it here to avoid the use of forward declaration */
+struct bpf_dummy_ops_state {
+ int val;
+};
+
+struct bpf_dummy_ops {
+ int (*test_1)(struct bpf_dummy_ops_state *cb);
+ int (*test_2)(struct bpf_dummy_ops_state *cb, int a1, unsigned short a2,
+ char a3, unsigned long a4);
+};
+
+int bpf_struct_ops_test_run(struct bpf_prog *prog, const union bpf_attr *kattr,
+ union bpf_attr __user *uattr);
+#endif
#else
static inline const struct bpf_struct_ops *bpf_struct_ops_find(u32 type_id)
{
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c b/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c
index 44be101f2562..8ecfe4752769 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c
@@ -93,6 +93,9 @@ const struct bpf_verifier_ops bpf_struct_ops_verifier_ops = {
};
const struct bpf_prog_ops bpf_struct_ops_prog_ops = {
+#ifdef CONFIG_NET
+ .test_run = bpf_struct_ops_test_run,
+#endif
};
static const struct btf_type *module_type;
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops_types.h b/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops_types.h
index 066d83ea1c99..5678a9ddf817 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops_types.h
+++ b/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops_types.h
@@ -2,6 +2,9 @@
/* internal file - do not include directly */
#ifdef CONFIG_BPF_JIT
+#ifdef CONFIG_NET
+BPF_STRUCT_OPS_TYPE(bpf_dummy_ops)
+#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_INET
#include <net/tcp.h>
BPF_STRUCT_OPS_TYPE(tcp_congestion_ops)
diff --git a/net/bpf/Makefile b/net/bpf/Makefile
index 1c0a98d8c28f..1ebe270bde23 100644
--- a/net/bpf/Makefile
+++ b/net/bpf/Makefile
@@ -1,2 +1,5 @@
# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
obj-$(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL) := test_run.o
+ifeq ($(CONFIG_BPF_JIT),y)
+obj-$(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL) += bpf_dummy_struct_ops.o
+endif
diff --git a/net/bpf/bpf_dummy_struct_ops.c b/net/bpf/bpf_dummy_struct_ops.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..fbc896323bec
--- /dev/null
+++ b/net/bpf/bpf_dummy_struct_ops.c
@@ -0,0 +1,200 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+/*
+ * Copyright (C) 2021. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
+ */
+#include <linux/kernel.h>
+#include <linux/bpf_verifier.h>
+#include <linux/bpf.h>
+#include <linux/btf.h>
+
+extern struct bpf_struct_ops bpf_bpf_dummy_ops;
+
+/* A common type for test_N with return value in bpf_dummy_ops */
+typedef int (*dummy_ops_test_ret_fn)(struct bpf_dummy_ops_state *state, ...);
+
+struct bpf_dummy_ops_test_args {
+ u64 args[MAX_BPF_FUNC_ARGS];
+ struct bpf_dummy_ops_state state;
+};
+
+static struct bpf_dummy_ops_test_args *
+dummy_ops_init_args(const union bpf_attr *kattr, unsigned int nr)
+{
+ __u32 size_in;
+ struct bpf_dummy_ops_test_args *args;
+ void __user *ctx_in;
+ void __user *u_state;
+
+ size_in = kattr->test.ctx_size_in;
+ if (size_in != sizeof(u64) * nr)
+ return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
+
+ args = kzalloc(sizeof(*args), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!args)
+ return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
+
+ ctx_in = u64_to_user_ptr(kattr->test.ctx_in);
+ if (copy_from_user(args->args, ctx_in, size_in))
+ goto out;
+
+ /* args[0] is 0 means state argument of test_N will be NULL */
+ u_state = u64_to_user_ptr(args->args[0]);
+ if (u_state && copy_from_user(&args->state, u_state,
+ sizeof(args->state)))
+ goto out;
+
+ return args;
+out:
+ kfree(args);
+ return ERR_PTR(-EFAULT);
+}
+
+static int dummy_ops_copy_args(struct bpf_dummy_ops_test_args *args)
+{
+ void __user *u_state;
+
+ u_state = u64_to_user_ptr(args->args[0]);
+ if (u_state && copy_to_user(u_state, &args->state, sizeof(args->state)))
+ return -EFAULT;
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static int dummy_ops_call_op(void *image, struct bpf_dummy_ops_test_args *args)
+{
+ dummy_ops_test_ret_fn test = (void *)image;
+ struct bpf_dummy_ops_state *state = NULL;
+
+ /* state needs to be NULL if args[0] is 0 */
+ if (args->args[0])
+ state = &args->state;
+ return test(state, args->args[1], args->args[2],
+ args->args[3], args->args[4]);
+}
+
+int bpf_struct_ops_test_run(struct bpf_prog *prog, const union bpf_attr *kattr,
+ union bpf_attr __user *uattr)
+{
+ const struct bpf_struct_ops *st_ops = &bpf_bpf_dummy_ops;
+ const struct btf_type *func_proto;
+ struct bpf_dummy_ops_test_args *args;
+ struct bpf_tramp_progs *tprogs;
+ void *image = NULL;
+ unsigned int op_idx;
+ int prog_ret;
+ int err;
+
+ if (prog->aux->attach_btf_id != st_ops->type_id)
+ return -EOPNOTSUPP;
+
+ func_proto = prog->aux->attach_func_proto;
+ args = dummy_ops_init_args(kattr, btf_type_vlen(func_proto));
+ if (IS_ERR(args))
+ return PTR_ERR(args);
+
+ tprogs = kcalloc(BPF_TRAMP_MAX, sizeof(*tprogs), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!tprogs) {
+ err = -ENOMEM;
+ goto out;
+ }
+
+ image = bpf_jit_alloc_exec(PAGE_SIZE);
+ if (!image) {
+ err = -ENOMEM;
+ goto out;
+ }
+ set_vm_flush_reset_perms(image);
+
+ op_idx = prog->expected_attach_type;
+ err = bpf_struct_ops_prepare_trampoline(tprogs, prog,
+ &st_ops->func_models[op_idx],
+ image, image + PAGE_SIZE);
+ if (err < 0)
+ goto out;
+
+ set_memory_ro((long)image, 1);
+ set_memory_x((long)image, 1);
+ prog_ret = dummy_ops_call_op(image, args);
+
+ err = dummy_ops_copy_args(args);
+ if (err)
+ goto out;
+ if (put_user(prog_ret, &uattr->test.retval))
+ err = -EFAULT;
+out:
+ kfree(args);
+ bpf_jit_free_exec(image);
+ kfree(tprogs);
+ return err;
+}
+
+static int bpf_dummy_init(struct btf *btf)
+{
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static bool bpf_dummy_ops_is_valid_access(int off, int size,
+ enum bpf_access_type type,
+ const struct bpf_prog *prog,
+ struct bpf_insn_access_aux *info)
+{
+ return bpf_tracing_btf_ctx_access(off, size, type, prog, info);
+}
+
+static int bpf_dummy_ops_btf_struct_access(struct bpf_verifier_log *log,
+ const struct btf *btf,
+ const struct btf_type *t, int off,
+ int size, enum bpf_access_type atype,
+ u32 *next_btf_id)
+{
+ const struct btf_type *state;
+ s32 type_id;
+ int err;
+
+ type_id = btf_find_by_name_kind(btf, "bpf_dummy_ops_state",
+ BTF_KIND_STRUCT);
+ if (type_id < 0)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ state = btf_type_by_id(btf, type_id);
+ if (t != state) {
+ bpf_log(log, "only access to bpf_dummy_ops_state is supported\n");
+ return -EACCES;
+ }
+
+ err = btf_struct_access(log, btf, t, off, size, atype, next_btf_id);
+ if (err < 0)
+ return err;
+
+ return atype == BPF_READ ? err : NOT_INIT;
+}
+
+static const struct bpf_verifier_ops bpf_dummy_verifier_ops = {
+ .is_valid_access = bpf_dummy_ops_is_valid_access,
+ .btf_struct_access = bpf_dummy_ops_btf_struct_access,
+};
+
+static int bpf_dummy_init_member(const struct btf_type *t,
+ const struct btf_member *member,
+ void *kdata, const void *udata)
+{
+ return -EOPNOTSUPP;
+}
+
+static int bpf_dummy_reg(void *kdata)
+{
+ return -EOPNOTSUPP;
+}
+
+static void bpf_dummy_unreg(void *kdata)
+{
+}
+
+struct bpf_struct_ops bpf_bpf_dummy_ops = {
+ .verifier_ops = &bpf_dummy_verifier_ops,
+ .init = bpf_dummy_init,
+ .init_member = bpf_dummy_init_member,
+ .reg = bpf_dummy_reg,
+ .unreg = bpf_dummy_unreg,
+ .name = "bpf_dummy_ops",
+};
--
2.29.2
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH bpf-next v4 4/4] selftests/bpf: add test cases for struct_ops prog
2021-10-25 6:40 [PATCH bpf-next v4 0/4] introduce dummy BPF STRUCT_OPS Hou Tao
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2021-10-25 6:40 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 3/4] bpf: add dummy BPF STRUCT_OPS for test purpose Hou Tao
@ 2021-10-25 6:40 ` Hou Tao
2021-10-29 10:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 0/4] introduce dummy BPF STRUCT_OPS Hou Tao
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Hou Tao @ 2021-10-25 6:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexei Starovoitov
Cc: Martin KaFai Lau, Yonghong Song, Daniel Borkmann,
Andrii Nakryiko, netdev, bpf, houtao1
Running a BPF_PROG_TYPE_STRUCT_OPS prog for dummy_st_ops::test_N()
through bpf_prog_test_run(). Four test cases are added:
(1) attach dummy_st_ops should fail
(2) function return value of bpf_dummy_ops::test_1() is expected
(3) pointer argument of bpf_dummy_ops::test_1() works as expected
(4) multiple arguments passed to bpf_dummy_ops::test_2() are correct
Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com>
Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
---
.../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/dummy_st_ops.c | 115 ++++++++++++++++++
.../selftests/bpf/progs/dummy_st_ops.c | 50 ++++++++
2 files changed, 165 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/dummy_st_ops.c
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/dummy_st_ops.c
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/dummy_st_ops.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/dummy_st_ops.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..cbaa44ffb8c6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/dummy_st_ops.c
@@ -0,0 +1,115 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+/* Copyright (C) 2021. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd */
+#include <test_progs.h>
+#include "dummy_st_ops.skel.h"
+
+/* Need to keep consistent with definition in include/linux/bpf.h */
+struct bpf_dummy_ops_state {
+ int val;
+};
+
+static void test_dummy_st_ops_attach(void)
+{
+ struct dummy_st_ops *skel;
+ struct bpf_link *link;
+
+ skel = dummy_st_ops__open_and_load();
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "dummy_st_ops_load"))
+ return;
+
+ link = bpf_map__attach_struct_ops(skel->maps.dummy_1);
+ ASSERT_EQ(libbpf_get_error(link), -EOPNOTSUPP, "dummy_st_ops_attach");
+
+ dummy_st_ops__destroy(skel);
+}
+
+static void test_dummy_init_ret_value(void)
+{
+ __u64 args[1] = {0};
+ struct bpf_prog_test_run_attr attr = {
+ .ctx_size_in = sizeof(args),
+ .ctx_in = args,
+ };
+ struct dummy_st_ops *skel;
+ int fd, err;
+
+ skel = dummy_st_ops__open_and_load();
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "dummy_st_ops_load"))
+ return;
+
+ fd = bpf_program__fd(skel->progs.test_1);
+ attr.prog_fd = fd;
+ err = bpf_prog_test_run_xattr(&attr);
+ ASSERT_OK(err, "test_run");
+ ASSERT_EQ(attr.retval, 0xf2f3f4f5, "test_ret");
+
+ dummy_st_ops__destroy(skel);
+}
+
+static void test_dummy_init_ptr_arg(void)
+{
+ int exp_retval = 0xbeef;
+ struct bpf_dummy_ops_state in_state = {
+ .val = exp_retval,
+ };
+ __u64 args[1] = {(unsigned long)&in_state};
+ struct bpf_prog_test_run_attr attr = {
+ .ctx_size_in = sizeof(args),
+ .ctx_in = args,
+ };
+ struct dummy_st_ops *skel;
+ int fd, err;
+
+ skel = dummy_st_ops__open_and_load();
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "dummy_st_ops_load"))
+ return;
+
+ fd = bpf_program__fd(skel->progs.test_1);
+ attr.prog_fd = fd;
+ err = bpf_prog_test_run_xattr(&attr);
+ ASSERT_OK(err, "test_run");
+ ASSERT_EQ(in_state.val, 0x5a, "test_ptr_ret");
+ ASSERT_EQ(attr.retval, exp_retval, "test_ret");
+
+ dummy_st_ops__destroy(skel);
+}
+
+static void test_dummy_multiple_args(void)
+{
+ __u64 args[5] = {0, -100, 0x8a5f, 'c', 0x1234567887654321ULL};
+ struct bpf_prog_test_run_attr attr = {
+ .ctx_size_in = sizeof(args),
+ .ctx_in = args,
+ };
+ struct dummy_st_ops *skel;
+ int fd, err;
+ size_t i;
+ char name[8];
+
+ skel = dummy_st_ops__open_and_load();
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "dummy_st_ops_load"))
+ return;
+
+ fd = bpf_program__fd(skel->progs.test_2);
+ attr.prog_fd = fd;
+ err = bpf_prog_test_run_xattr(&attr);
+ ASSERT_OK(err, "test_run");
+ for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(args); i++) {
+ snprintf(name, sizeof(name), "arg %zu", i);
+ ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->test_2_args[i], args[i], name);
+ }
+
+ dummy_st_ops__destroy(skel);
+}
+
+void test_dummy_st_ops(void)
+{
+ if (test__start_subtest("dummy_st_ops_attach"))
+ test_dummy_st_ops_attach();
+ if (test__start_subtest("dummy_init_ret_value"))
+ test_dummy_init_ret_value();
+ if (test__start_subtest("dummy_init_ptr_arg"))
+ test_dummy_init_ptr_arg();
+ if (test__start_subtest("dummy_multiple_args"))
+ test_dummy_multiple_args();
+}
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/dummy_st_ops.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/dummy_st_ops.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..ead87edb75e2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/dummy_st_ops.c
@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+/* Copyright (C) 2021. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd */
+#include <linux/bpf.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
+
+struct bpf_dummy_ops_state {
+ int val;
+} __attribute__((preserve_access_index));
+
+struct bpf_dummy_ops {
+ int (*test_1)(struct bpf_dummy_ops_state *state);
+ int (*test_2)(struct bpf_dummy_ops_state *state, int a1, unsigned short a2,
+ char a3, unsigned long a4);
+};
+
+char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
+
+SEC("struct_ops/test_1")
+int BPF_PROG(test_1, struct bpf_dummy_ops_state *state)
+{
+ int ret;
+
+ if (!state)
+ return 0xf2f3f4f5;
+
+ ret = state->val;
+ state->val = 0x5a;
+ return ret;
+}
+
+__u64 test_2_args[5];
+
+SEC("struct_ops/test_2")
+int BPF_PROG(test_2, struct bpf_dummy_ops_state *state, int a1, unsigned short a2,
+ char a3, unsigned long a4)
+{
+ test_2_args[0] = (unsigned long)state;
+ test_2_args[1] = a1;
+ test_2_args[2] = a2;
+ test_2_args[3] = a3;
+ test_2_args[4] = a4;
+ return 0;
+}
+
+SEC(".struct_ops")
+struct bpf_dummy_ops dummy_1 = {
+ .test_1 = (void *)test_1,
+ .test_2 = (void *)test_2,
+};
--
2.29.2
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 0/4] introduce dummy BPF STRUCT_OPS
2021-10-25 6:40 [PATCH bpf-next v4 0/4] introduce dummy BPF STRUCT_OPS Hou Tao
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2021-10-25 6:40 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 4/4] selftests/bpf: add test cases for struct_ops prog Hou Tao
@ 2021-10-29 10:55 ` Hou Tao
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Hou Tao @ 2021-10-29 10:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexei Starovoitov
Cc: Martin KaFai Lau, Yonghong Song, Daniel Borkmann,
Andrii Nakryiko, netdev, bpf
Hi Alexei,
Could you please consider the patch set for 5.16 ? The whole patch set has
already been Acked by Martin.
Thanks.
On 10/25/2021 2:40 PM, Hou Tao wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Currently the test of BPF STRUCT_OPS depends on the specific bpf
> implementation (e.g, tcp_congestion_ops), but it can not cover all
> basic functionalities (e.g, return value handling), so introduce
> a dummy BPF STRUCT_OPS for test purpose.
>
> Instead of loading a userspace-implemeted bpf_dummy_ops map into
> kernel and calling the specific function by writing to sysfs provided
> by bpf_testmode.ko, only loading bpf_dummy_ops related prog into
> kernel and calling these prog by bpf_prog_test_run(). The latter
> is more flexible and has no dependency on extra kernel module.
>
> Now the return value handling is supported by test_1(...) ops,
> and passing multiple arguments is supported by test_2(...) ops.
> If more is needed, test_x(...) ops can be added afterwards.
>
> Comments are always welcome.
> Regards,
> Hou
>
> Change Log:
> v4:
> * add Acked-by tags in patch 1~4
> * patch 2: remove unncessary comments and update commit message
> accordingly
> * patch 4: remove unnecessary nr checking in dummy_ops_init_args()
>
> v3: https://www.spinics.net/lists/bpf/msg48303.html
> * rebase on bpf-next
> * address comments for Martin, mainly include: merge patch 3 &
> patch 4 in v2, fix names of btf ctx access check helpers,
> handle CONFIG_NET, fix leak in dummy_ops_init_args(), and
> simplify bpf_dummy_init()
> * patch 4: use a loop to check args in test_dummy_multiple_args()
>
> v2: https://www.spinics.net/lists/bpf/msg47948.html
> * rebase on bpf-next
> * add test_2(...) ops to test the passing of multiple arguments
> * a new patch (patch #2) is added to factor out ctx access helpers
> * address comments from Martin & Andrii
>
> v1: https://www.spinics.net/lists/bpf/msg46787.html
>
> RFC: https://www.spinics.net/lists/bpf/msg46117.html
>
>
> Hou Tao (4):
> bpf: factor out a helper to prepare trampoline for struct_ops prog
> bpf: factor out helpers for ctx access checking
> bpf: add dummy BPF STRUCT_OPS for test purpose
> selftests/bpf: add test cases for struct_ops prog
>
> include/linux/bpf.h | 43 ++++
> kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c | 32 ++-
> kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops_types.h | 3 +
> kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 16 +-
> net/bpf/Makefile | 3 +
> net/bpf/bpf_dummy_struct_ops.c | 200 ++++++++++++++++++
> net/ipv4/bpf_tcp_ca.c | 9 +-
> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/dummy_st_ops.c | 115 ++++++++++
> .../selftests/bpf/progs/dummy_st_ops.c | 50 +++++
> 9 files changed, 439 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 net/bpf/bpf_dummy_struct_ops.c
> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/dummy_st_ops.c
> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/dummy_st_ops.c
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-10-29 10:55 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-10-25 6:40 [PATCH bpf-next v4 0/4] introduce dummy BPF STRUCT_OPS Hou Tao
2021-10-25 6:40 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 1/4] bpf: factor out a helper to prepare trampoline for struct_ops prog Hou Tao
2021-10-25 6:40 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 2/4] bpf: factor out helpers for ctx access checking Hou Tao
2021-10-25 6:40 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 3/4] bpf: add dummy BPF STRUCT_OPS for test purpose Hou Tao
2021-10-25 6:40 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 4/4] selftests/bpf: add test cases for struct_ops prog Hou Tao
2021-10-29 10:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 0/4] introduce dummy BPF STRUCT_OPS Hou Tao
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).