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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37446C388F7 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 00:05:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC285223C6 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 00:05:54 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=chromium.org header.i=@chromium.org header.b="kGbCayly" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729021AbgKDAFu (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Nov 2020 19:05:50 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:52710 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729457AbgKDAFu (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Nov 2020 19:05:50 -0500 Received: from mail-lf1-x141.google.com (mail-lf1-x141.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::141]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE7A7C061A47 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 16:05:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lf1-x141.google.com with SMTP id 184so24682345lfd.6 for ; Tue, 03 Nov 2020 16:05:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Eq/hKMyLgdp/QXXnQV5r6IWOxg03mEPCZUhhSNnW7WQ=; b=kGbCaylyi3k1edOqC9ql7Ui7JoWXWXg6MNLPnsqRDCSqzBsrZ0+FWoh1oZ9OUo8SbC wm654Ccbvp3ZTzDnAtEoYjzR5/5Ho9Nrayfi4QGYwRueZ/YErdfLFzGXCWNWsOJCHpK8 UPppa7VdIAXGPMtTUU1c6bV/Onokcw6tn8Sg0= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Eq/hKMyLgdp/QXXnQV5r6IWOxg03mEPCZUhhSNnW7WQ=; b=FzYrbhNwR+fKHsBWLkcMMJ/cX4wYzYcSjGYVP/V35lVzgHtdaf6uWFUj/Unxx+USe8 itAjUtYoH9sQsVULH1r5XsIOxeHVMfNsVTRVvaxnj4C9zC8Wx/+0IgSHVX6WBKAxCwwY laFWf9Mo+A1Nup7jXiUu4i7gUmnKiQln6cX5oAaougStiMrN7/QNZ6ij6yWTLw37Pwdn O7R3rcjH6KDVgbemMNbXGUAZ0XTiCXQXrHb7TlfXf31SStnYxR7lSthp+4ptNewN7+ag NfdxhkZSCEukgdbIkVzMgLnjz3mP9BDPOIsXqomNA+HJxPNvL6Lgu4qL0Kghos6Io7Ja gBsw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530zmuKas/E13YFuGhDnLGp3btQkgGlJINwpyOI2BCejxTmTld42 H3/MFLAAOOO9z8hMZvy7pZnU9fv28Fk40wYvMO75Yg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyaQiAijXHPV9yeVkPh8oqSfakHStF6zz7Ot5pXha23zseqo/DSuoaYALXBcHKNlHfshHPlApWX9Z2AFXr6E70= X-Received: by 2002:ac2:44a4:: with SMTP id c4mr9029079lfm.365.1604448348193; Tue, 03 Nov 2020 16:05:48 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201103153132.2717326-1-kpsingh@chromium.org> <20201103153132.2717326-8-kpsingh@chromium.org> <20201103184714.iukuqfw2byls3s4k@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com> In-Reply-To: From: KP Singh Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2020 01:05:37 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 7/8] bpf: Add tests for task_local_storage To: Alexei Starovoitov Cc: open list , bpf , Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , Martin KaFai Lau , Song Liu , Paul Turner , Jann Horn , Hao Luo Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 7:59 PM KP Singh wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 7:47 PM Alexei Starovoitov > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 04:31:31PM +0100, KP Singh wrote: > > > + > > > +struct storage { > > > + void *inode; > > > + unsigned int value; > > > + /* Lock ensures that spin locked versions of local stoage operations > > > + * also work, most operations in this tests are still single threaded > > > + */ > > > + struct bpf_spin_lock lock; > > > +}; > > > > I think it's a good idea to test spin_lock in local_storage, > > but it seems the test is not doing it fully. > > It's only adding it to the storage, but the program is not accessing it. > > I added it here just to check if the offset calculations (map->spin_lock_off) > are correctly happening for these new maps. > > As mentioned in the updates, I do intend to generalize > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/map_tests/sk_storage_map.c which already has > the threading logic to exercise bpf_spin_lock in storage maps. > Actually, after I added simple bpf_spin_{lock, unlock} to the test programs, I ended up realizing that we have not exposed spin locks to LSM programs for now, this is because they inherit the tracing helpers. I saw the docs mention that these are not exposed to tracing programs due to insufficient preemption checks. Do you think it would be okay to allow them for LSM programs? - KP > Hope this is an okay plan?