* [PATCHv4 bpf-next 1/5] bpf: Allow trampoline re-attach for tracing and lsm programs
2021-04-12 16:24 [PATCHv4 bpf-next 0/5] bpf: Tracing and lsm programs re-attach Jiri Olsa
@ 2021-04-12 16:24 ` Jiri Olsa
2021-04-13 22:03 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-04-12 16:24 ` [PATCHv4 bpf-next 2/5] selftests/bpf: Add re-attach test to fentry_test Jiri Olsa
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Jiri Olsa @ 2021-04-12 16:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko
Cc: kernel test robot, Julia Lawall,
Toke Høiland-Jørgensen, netdev, bpf, Martin KaFai Lau,
Song Liu, Yonghong Song, John Fastabend, KP Singh, Julia Lawall
Currently we don't allow re-attaching of trampolines. Once
it's detached, it can't be re-attach even when the program
is still loaded.
Adding the possibility to re-attach the loaded tracing and
lsm programs.
Fixing missing unlock with proper cleanup goto jump reported
by Julia.
Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Reported-by: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
Acked-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
---
kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++------
kernel/bpf/trampoline.c | 2 +-
2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
index 6428634da57e..f02c6a871b4f 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
@@ -2645,14 +2645,25 @@ static int bpf_tracing_prog_attach(struct bpf_prog *prog,
* target_btf_id using the link_create API.
*
* - if tgt_prog == NULL when this function was called using the old
- * raw_tracepoint_open API, and we need a target from prog->aux
- *
- * The combination of no saved target in prog->aux, and no target
- * specified on load is illegal, and we reject that here.
+ * raw_tracepoint_open API, and we need a target from prog->aux
+ *
+ * - if prog->aux->dst_trampoline and tgt_prog is NULL, the program
+ * was detached and is going for re-attachment.
*/
if (!prog->aux->dst_trampoline && !tgt_prog) {
- err = -ENOENT;
- goto out_unlock;
+ /*
+ * Allow re-attach for TRACING and LSM programs. If it's
+ * currently linked, bpf_trampoline_link_prog will fail.
+ * EXT programs need to specify tgt_prog_fd, so they
+ * re-attach in separate code path.
+ */
+ if (prog->type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING &&
+ prog->type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM) {
+ err = -EINVAL;
+ goto out_unlock;
+ }
+ btf_id = prog->aux->attach_btf_id;
+ key = bpf_trampoline_compute_key(NULL, prog->aux->attach_btf, btf_id);
}
if (!prog->aux->dst_trampoline ||
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/trampoline.c b/kernel/bpf/trampoline.c
index 1f3a4be4b175..48b8b9916aa2 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/trampoline.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/trampoline.c
@@ -437,7 +437,7 @@ int bpf_trampoline_unlink_prog(struct bpf_prog *prog, struct bpf_trampoline *tr)
tr->extension_prog = NULL;
goto out;
}
- hlist_del(&prog->aux->tramp_hlist);
+ hlist_del_init(&prog->aux->tramp_hlist);
tr->progs_cnt[kind]--;
err = bpf_trampoline_update(tr);
out:
--
2.30.2
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCHv4 bpf-next 1/5] bpf: Allow trampoline re-attach for tracing and lsm programs
2021-04-12 16:24 ` [PATCHv4 bpf-next 1/5] bpf: Allow trampoline re-attach for tracing and lsm programs Jiri Olsa
@ 2021-04-13 22:03 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-04-14 11:01 ` Jiri Olsa
0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Andrii Nakryiko @ 2021-04-13 22:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jiri Olsa
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko,
kernel test robot, Julia Lawall,
Toke Høiland-Jørgensen, Networking, bpf,
Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu, Yonghong Song, John Fastabend,
KP Singh, Julia Lawall
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 9:28 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Currently we don't allow re-attaching of trampolines. Once
> it's detached, it can't be re-attach even when the program
> is still loaded.
>
> Adding the possibility to re-attach the loaded tracing and
> lsm programs.
>
> Fixing missing unlock with proper cleanup goto jump reported
> by Julia.
>
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> Reported-by: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
> Acked-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
> ---
> kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++------
> kernel/bpf/trampoline.c | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> index 6428634da57e..f02c6a871b4f 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> @@ -2645,14 +2645,25 @@ static int bpf_tracing_prog_attach(struct bpf_prog *prog,
> * target_btf_id using the link_create API.
> *
> * - if tgt_prog == NULL when this function was called using the old
> - * raw_tracepoint_open API, and we need a target from prog->aux
> - *
> - * The combination of no saved target in prog->aux, and no target
> - * specified on load is illegal, and we reject that here.
> + * raw_tracepoint_open API, and we need a target from prog->aux
> + *
> + * - if prog->aux->dst_trampoline and tgt_prog is NULL, the program
> + * was detached and is going for re-attachment.
> */
> if (!prog->aux->dst_trampoline && !tgt_prog) {
> - err = -ENOENT;
> - goto out_unlock;
> + /*
> + * Allow re-attach for TRACING and LSM programs. If it's
> + * currently linked, bpf_trampoline_link_prog will fail.
> + * EXT programs need to specify tgt_prog_fd, so they
> + * re-attach in separate code path.
> + */
> + if (prog->type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING &&
> + prog->type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM) {
> + err = -EINVAL;
> + goto out_unlock;
> + }
> + btf_id = prog->aux->attach_btf_id;
> + key = bpf_trampoline_compute_key(NULL, prog->aux->attach_btf, btf_id);
> }
>
> if (!prog->aux->dst_trampoline ||
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/trampoline.c b/kernel/bpf/trampoline.c
> index 1f3a4be4b175..48b8b9916aa2 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/trampoline.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/trampoline.c
> @@ -437,7 +437,7 @@ int bpf_trampoline_unlink_prog(struct bpf_prog *prog, struct bpf_trampoline *tr)
> tr->extension_prog = NULL;
> goto out;
> }
> - hlist_del(&prog->aux->tramp_hlist);
> + hlist_del_init(&prog->aux->tramp_hlist);
there is another hlist_del few lines above in error handling path of
bpf_trampoline_link_prog(), it should probably be also updated to
hlist_del_init(), no?
> tr->progs_cnt[kind]--;
> err = bpf_trampoline_update(tr);
> out:
> --
> 2.30.2
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCHv4 bpf-next 1/5] bpf: Allow trampoline re-attach for tracing and lsm programs
2021-04-13 22:03 ` Andrii Nakryiko
@ 2021-04-14 11:01 ` Jiri Olsa
0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Jiri Olsa @ 2021-04-14 11:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrii Nakryiko
Cc: Jiri Olsa, Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko,
kernel test robot, Julia Lawall,
Toke Høiland-Jørgensen, Networking, bpf,
Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu, Yonghong Song, John Fastabend,
KP Singh, Julia Lawall
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 03:03:27PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 9:28 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Currently we don't allow re-attaching of trampolines. Once
> > it's detached, it can't be re-attach even when the program
> > is still loaded.
> >
> > Adding the possibility to re-attach the loaded tracing and
> > lsm programs.
> >
> > Fixing missing unlock with proper cleanup goto jump reported
> > by Julia.
> >
> > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> > Reported-by: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
> > Acked-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
> > ---
> > kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++------
> > kernel/bpf/trampoline.c | 2 +-
> > 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> > index 6428634da57e..f02c6a871b4f 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> > @@ -2645,14 +2645,25 @@ static int bpf_tracing_prog_attach(struct bpf_prog *prog,
> > * target_btf_id using the link_create API.
> > *
> > * - if tgt_prog == NULL when this function was called using the old
> > - * raw_tracepoint_open API, and we need a target from prog->aux
> > - *
> > - * The combination of no saved target in prog->aux, and no target
> > - * specified on load is illegal, and we reject that here.
> > + * raw_tracepoint_open API, and we need a target from prog->aux
> > + *
> > + * - if prog->aux->dst_trampoline and tgt_prog is NULL, the program
> > + * was detached and is going for re-attachment.
> > */
> > if (!prog->aux->dst_trampoline && !tgt_prog) {
> > - err = -ENOENT;
> > - goto out_unlock;
> > + /*
> > + * Allow re-attach for TRACING and LSM programs. If it's
> > + * currently linked, bpf_trampoline_link_prog will fail.
> > + * EXT programs need to specify tgt_prog_fd, so they
> > + * re-attach in separate code path.
> > + */
> > + if (prog->type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING &&
> > + prog->type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM) {
> > + err = -EINVAL;
> > + goto out_unlock;
> > + }
> > + btf_id = prog->aux->attach_btf_id;
> > + key = bpf_trampoline_compute_key(NULL, prog->aux->attach_btf, btf_id);
> > }
> >
> > if (!prog->aux->dst_trampoline ||
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/trampoline.c b/kernel/bpf/trampoline.c
> > index 1f3a4be4b175..48b8b9916aa2 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/trampoline.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/trampoline.c
> > @@ -437,7 +437,7 @@ int bpf_trampoline_unlink_prog(struct bpf_prog *prog, struct bpf_trampoline *tr)
> > tr->extension_prog = NULL;
> > goto out;
> > }
> > - hlist_del(&prog->aux->tramp_hlist);
> > + hlist_del_init(&prog->aux->tramp_hlist);
>
> there is another hlist_del few lines above in error handling path of
> bpf_trampoline_link_prog(), it should probably be also updated to
> hlist_del_init(), no?
ugh, that one is missing.. will fix
thanks,
jirka
>
> > tr->progs_cnt[kind]--;
> > err = bpf_trampoline_update(tr);
> > out:
> > --
> > 2.30.2
> >
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [PATCHv4 bpf-next 2/5] selftests/bpf: Add re-attach test to fentry_test
2021-04-12 16:24 [PATCHv4 bpf-next 0/5] bpf: Tracing and lsm programs re-attach Jiri Olsa
2021-04-12 16:24 ` [PATCHv4 bpf-next 1/5] bpf: Allow trampoline re-attach for tracing and lsm programs Jiri Olsa
@ 2021-04-12 16:24 ` Jiri Olsa
2021-04-13 21:54 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-04-12 16:25 ` [PATCHv4 bpf-next 3/5] selftests/bpf: Add re-attach test to fexit_test Jiri Olsa
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Jiri Olsa @ 2021-04-12 16:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko
Cc: netdev, bpf, Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu, Yonghong Song,
John Fastabend, KP Singh, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen,
Julia Lawall
Adding the test to re-attach (detach/attach again) tracing
fentry programs, plus check that already linked program can't
be attached again.
Also switching to ASSERT* macros and adding missing ';' in
ASSERT_ERR_PTR macro.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
---
.../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fentry_test.c | 51 +++++++++++++------
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.h | 2 +-
2 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fentry_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fentry_test.c
index 04ebbf1cb390..f440c74f5367 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fentry_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fentry_test.c
@@ -3,35 +3,56 @@
#include <test_progs.h>
#include "fentry_test.skel.h"
-void test_fentry_test(void)
+static int fentry_test(struct fentry_test *fentry_skel)
{
- struct fentry_test *fentry_skel = NULL;
int err, prog_fd, i;
__u32 duration = 0, retval;
+ struct bpf_link *link;
__u64 *result;
- fentry_skel = fentry_test__open_and_load();
- if (CHECK(!fentry_skel, "fentry_skel_load", "fentry skeleton failed\n"))
- goto cleanup;
-
err = fentry_test__attach(fentry_skel);
- if (CHECK(err, "fentry_attach", "fentry attach failed: %d\n", err))
- goto cleanup;
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "fentry_attach"))
+ return err;
+
+ /* Check that already linked program can't be attached again. */
+ link = bpf_program__attach(fentry_skel->progs.test1);
+ if (!ASSERT_ERR_PTR(link, "fentry_attach_link"))
+ return -1;
prog_fd = bpf_program__fd(fentry_skel->progs.test1);
err = bpf_prog_test_run(prog_fd, 1, NULL, 0,
NULL, NULL, &retval, &duration);
- CHECK(err || retval, "test_run",
- "err %d errno %d retval %d duration %d\n",
- err, errno, retval, duration);
+ ASSERT_OK(err || retval, "test_run");
result = (__u64 *)fentry_skel->bss;
- for (i = 0; i < 6; i++) {
- if (CHECK(result[i] != 1, "result",
- "fentry_test%d failed err %lld\n", i + 1, result[i]))
- goto cleanup;
+ for (i = 0; i < sizeof(*fentry_skel->bss) / sizeof(__u64); i++) {
+ if (!ASSERT_EQ(result[i], 1, "fentry_result"))
+ return -1;
}
+ fentry_test__detach(fentry_skel);
+
+ /* zero results for re-attach test */
+ memset(fentry_skel->bss, 0, sizeof(*fentry_skel->bss));
+ return 0;
+}
+
+void test_fentry_test(void)
+{
+ struct fentry_test *fentry_skel = NULL;
+ int err;
+
+ fentry_skel = fentry_test__open_and_load();
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(fentry_skel, "fentry_skel_load"))
+ goto cleanup;
+
+ err = fentry_test(fentry_skel);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "fentry_first_attach"))
+ goto cleanup;
+
+ err = fentry_test(fentry_skel);
+ ASSERT_OK(err, "fentry_second_attach");
+
cleanup:
fentry_test__destroy(fentry_skel);
}
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.h
index e87c8546230e..ee7e3b45182a 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.h
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.h
@@ -210,7 +210,7 @@ extern int test__join_cgroup(const char *path);
#define ASSERT_ERR_PTR(ptr, name) ({ \
static int duration = 0; \
const void *___res = (ptr); \
- bool ___ok = IS_ERR(___res) \
+ bool ___ok = IS_ERR(___res); \
CHECK(!___ok, (name), "unexpected pointer: %p\n", ___res); \
___ok; \
})
--
2.30.2
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCHv4 bpf-next 2/5] selftests/bpf: Add re-attach test to fentry_test
2021-04-12 16:24 ` [PATCHv4 bpf-next 2/5] selftests/bpf: Add re-attach test to fentry_test Jiri Olsa
@ 2021-04-13 21:54 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-04-14 10:56 ` Jiri Olsa
0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Andrii Nakryiko @ 2021-04-13 21:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jiri Olsa
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko, Networking,
bpf, Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu, Yonghong Song, John Fastabend,
KP Singh, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen, Julia Lawall
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 9:29 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Adding the test to re-attach (detach/attach again) tracing
> fentry programs, plus check that already linked program can't
> be attached again.
>
> Also switching to ASSERT* macros and adding missing ';' in
> ASSERT_ERR_PTR macro.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
> ---
> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fentry_test.c | 51 +++++++++++++------
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.h | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fentry_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fentry_test.c
> index 04ebbf1cb390..f440c74f5367 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fentry_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fentry_test.c
> @@ -3,35 +3,56 @@
> #include <test_progs.h>
> #include "fentry_test.skel.h"
>
> -void test_fentry_test(void)
> +static int fentry_test(struct fentry_test *fentry_skel)
> {
> - struct fentry_test *fentry_skel = NULL;
> int err, prog_fd, i;
> __u32 duration = 0, retval;
> + struct bpf_link *link;
> __u64 *result;
>
> - fentry_skel = fentry_test__open_and_load();
> - if (CHECK(!fentry_skel, "fentry_skel_load", "fentry skeleton failed\n"))
> - goto cleanup;
> -
> err = fentry_test__attach(fentry_skel);
> - if (CHECK(err, "fentry_attach", "fentry attach failed: %d\n", err))
> - goto cleanup;
> + if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "fentry_attach"))
> + return err;
> +
> + /* Check that already linked program can't be attached again. */
> + link = bpf_program__attach(fentry_skel->progs.test1);
> + if (!ASSERT_ERR_PTR(link, "fentry_attach_link"))
> + return -1;
>
> prog_fd = bpf_program__fd(fentry_skel->progs.test1);
> err = bpf_prog_test_run(prog_fd, 1, NULL, 0,
> NULL, NULL, &retval, &duration);
> - CHECK(err || retval, "test_run",
> - "err %d errno %d retval %d duration %d\n",
> - err, errno, retval, duration);
> + ASSERT_OK(err || retval, "test_run");
this is quite misleading, even if will result in a correct check. Toke
did this in his patch set:
ASSERT_OK(err, ...);
ASSERT_EQ(retval, 0, ...);
It is a better and more straightforward way to validate the checks
instead of relying on (err || retval) -> bool (true) -> int (1) -> !=
0 chain.
>
> result = (__u64 *)fentry_skel->bss;
> - for (i = 0; i < 6; i++) {
> - if (CHECK(result[i] != 1, "result",
> - "fentry_test%d failed err %lld\n", i + 1, result[i]))
> - goto cleanup;
> + for (i = 0; i < sizeof(*fentry_skel->bss) / sizeof(__u64); i++) {
> + if (!ASSERT_EQ(result[i], 1, "fentry_result"))
> + return -1;
> }
>
> + fentry_test__detach(fentry_skel);
> +
> + /* zero results for re-attach test */
> + memset(fentry_skel->bss, 0, sizeof(*fentry_skel->bss));
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +void test_fentry_test(void)
> +{
> + struct fentry_test *fentry_skel = NULL;
> + int err;
> +
> + fentry_skel = fentry_test__open_and_load();
> + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(fentry_skel, "fentry_skel_load"))
> + goto cleanup;
> +
> + err = fentry_test(fentry_skel);
> + if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "fentry_first_attach"))
> + goto cleanup;
> +
> + err = fentry_test(fentry_skel);
> + ASSERT_OK(err, "fentry_second_attach");
> +
> cleanup:
> fentry_test__destroy(fentry_skel);
> }
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.h
> index e87c8546230e..ee7e3b45182a 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.h
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.h
> @@ -210,7 +210,7 @@ extern int test__join_cgroup(const char *path);
> #define ASSERT_ERR_PTR(ptr, name) ({ \
> static int duration = 0; \
> const void *___res = (ptr); \
> - bool ___ok = IS_ERR(___res) \
> + bool ___ok = IS_ERR(___res); \
heh, it probably deserves a separate patch with Fixes tag...
> CHECK(!___ok, (name), "unexpected pointer: %p\n", ___res); \
> ___ok; \
> })
> --
> 2.30.2
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCHv4 bpf-next 2/5] selftests/bpf: Add re-attach test to fentry_test
2021-04-13 21:54 ` Andrii Nakryiko
@ 2021-04-14 10:56 ` Jiri Olsa
2021-04-14 22:18 ` Andrii Nakryiko
0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Jiri Olsa @ 2021-04-14 10:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrii Nakryiko
Cc: Jiri Olsa, Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko,
Networking, bpf, Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu, Yonghong Song,
John Fastabend, KP Singh, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen,
Julia Lawall
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 02:54:10PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
SNIP
> > __u32 duration = 0, retval;
> > + struct bpf_link *link;
> > __u64 *result;
> >
> > - fentry_skel = fentry_test__open_and_load();
> > - if (CHECK(!fentry_skel, "fentry_skel_load", "fentry skeleton failed\n"))
> > - goto cleanup;
> > -
> > err = fentry_test__attach(fentry_skel);
> > - if (CHECK(err, "fentry_attach", "fentry attach failed: %d\n", err))
> > - goto cleanup;
> > + if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "fentry_attach"))
> > + return err;
> > +
> > + /* Check that already linked program can't be attached again. */
> > + link = bpf_program__attach(fentry_skel->progs.test1);
> > + if (!ASSERT_ERR_PTR(link, "fentry_attach_link"))
> > + return -1;
> >
> > prog_fd = bpf_program__fd(fentry_skel->progs.test1);
> > err = bpf_prog_test_run(prog_fd, 1, NULL, 0,
> > NULL, NULL, &retval, &duration);
> > - CHECK(err || retval, "test_run",
> > - "err %d errno %d retval %d duration %d\n",
> > - err, errno, retval, duration);
> > + ASSERT_OK(err || retval, "test_run");
>
> this is quite misleading, even if will result in a correct check. Toke
> did this in his patch set:
>
> ASSERT_OK(err, ...);
> ASSERT_EQ(retval, 0, ...);
>
> It is a better and more straightforward way to validate the checks
> instead of relying on (err || retval) -> bool (true) -> int (1) -> !=
> 0 chain.
ok, makes sense
SNIP
> > +void test_fentry_test(void)
> > +{
> > + struct fentry_test *fentry_skel = NULL;
> > + int err;
> > +
> > + fentry_skel = fentry_test__open_and_load();
> > + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(fentry_skel, "fentry_skel_load"))
> > + goto cleanup;
> > +
> > + err = fentry_test(fentry_skel);
> > + if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "fentry_first_attach"))
> > + goto cleanup;
> > +
> > + err = fentry_test(fentry_skel);
> > + ASSERT_OK(err, "fentry_second_attach");
> > +
> > cleanup:
> > fentry_test__destroy(fentry_skel);
> > }
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.h
> > index e87c8546230e..ee7e3b45182a 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.h
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.h
> > @@ -210,7 +210,7 @@ extern int test__join_cgroup(const char *path);
> > #define ASSERT_ERR_PTR(ptr, name) ({ \
> > static int duration = 0; \
> > const void *___res = (ptr); \
> > - bool ___ok = IS_ERR(___res) \
> > + bool ___ok = IS_ERR(___res); \
>
> heh, it probably deserves a separate patch with Fixes tag...
va bene
jirka
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCHv4 bpf-next 2/5] selftests/bpf: Add re-attach test to fentry_test
2021-04-14 10:56 ` Jiri Olsa
@ 2021-04-14 22:18 ` Andrii Nakryiko
0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Andrii Nakryiko @ 2021-04-14 22:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jiri Olsa
Cc: Jiri Olsa, Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko,
Networking, bpf, Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu, Yonghong Song,
John Fastabend, KP Singh, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen,
Julia Lawall
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 3:57 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 02:54:10PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
> > > __u32 duration = 0, retval;
> > > + struct bpf_link *link;
> > > __u64 *result;
> > >
> > > - fentry_skel = fentry_test__open_and_load();
> > > - if (CHECK(!fentry_skel, "fentry_skel_load", "fentry skeleton failed\n"))
> > > - goto cleanup;
> > > -
> > > err = fentry_test__attach(fentry_skel);
> > > - if (CHECK(err, "fentry_attach", "fentry attach failed: %d\n", err))
> > > - goto cleanup;
> > > + if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "fentry_attach"))
> > > + return err;
> > > +
> > > + /* Check that already linked program can't be attached again. */
> > > + link = bpf_program__attach(fentry_skel->progs.test1);
> > > + if (!ASSERT_ERR_PTR(link, "fentry_attach_link"))
> > > + return -1;
> > >
> > > prog_fd = bpf_program__fd(fentry_skel->progs.test1);
> > > err = bpf_prog_test_run(prog_fd, 1, NULL, 0,
> > > NULL, NULL, &retval, &duration);
> > > - CHECK(err || retval, "test_run",
> > > - "err %d errno %d retval %d duration %d\n",
> > > - err, errno, retval, duration);
> > > + ASSERT_OK(err || retval, "test_run");
> >
> > this is quite misleading, even if will result in a correct check. Toke
> > did this in his patch set:
> >
> > ASSERT_OK(err, ...);
> > ASSERT_EQ(retval, 0, ...);
> >
> > It is a better and more straightforward way to validate the checks
> > instead of relying on (err || retval) -> bool (true) -> int (1) -> !=
> > 0 chain.
>
> ok, makes sense
>
> SNIP
>
> > > +void test_fentry_test(void)
> > > +{
> > > + struct fentry_test *fentry_skel = NULL;
> > > + int err;
> > > +
> > > + fentry_skel = fentry_test__open_and_load();
> > > + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(fentry_skel, "fentry_skel_load"))
> > > + goto cleanup;
> > > +
> > > + err = fentry_test(fentry_skel);
> > > + if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "fentry_first_attach"))
> > > + goto cleanup;
> > > +
> > > + err = fentry_test(fentry_skel);
> > > + ASSERT_OK(err, "fentry_second_attach");
> > > +
> > > cleanup:
> > > fentry_test__destroy(fentry_skel);
> > > }
> > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.h
> > > index e87c8546230e..ee7e3b45182a 100644
> > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.h
> > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.h
> > > @@ -210,7 +210,7 @@ extern int test__join_cgroup(const char *path);
> > > #define ASSERT_ERR_PTR(ptr, name) ({ \
> > > static int duration = 0; \
> > > const void *___res = (ptr); \
> > > - bool ___ok = IS_ERR(___res) \
> > > + bool ___ok = IS_ERR(___res); \
> >
> > heh, it probably deserves a separate patch with Fixes tag...
>
> va bene
Where would I learn some Italian if not on bpf@vger :)
>
> jirka
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [PATCHv4 bpf-next 3/5] selftests/bpf: Add re-attach test to fexit_test
2021-04-12 16:24 [PATCHv4 bpf-next 0/5] bpf: Tracing and lsm programs re-attach Jiri Olsa
2021-04-12 16:24 ` [PATCHv4 bpf-next 1/5] bpf: Allow trampoline re-attach for tracing and lsm programs Jiri Olsa
2021-04-12 16:24 ` [PATCHv4 bpf-next 2/5] selftests/bpf: Add re-attach test to fentry_test Jiri Olsa
@ 2021-04-12 16:25 ` Jiri Olsa
2021-04-13 21:55 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-04-12 16:25 ` [PATCHv4 bpf-next 4/5] selftests/bpf: Add re-attach test to lsm test Jiri Olsa
2021-04-12 16:25 ` [PATCHv4 bpf-next 5/5] selftests/bpf: Test that module can't be unloaded with attached trampoline Jiri Olsa
4 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Jiri Olsa @ 2021-04-12 16:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko
Cc: netdev, bpf, Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu, Yonghong Song,
John Fastabend, KP Singh, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen,
Julia Lawall
Adding the test to re-attach (detach/attach again) tracing
fexit programs, plus check that already linked program can't
be attached again.
Also switching to ASSERT* macros.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
---
.../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fexit_test.c | 51 +++++++++++++------
1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fexit_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fexit_test.c
index 78d7a2765c27..c48e10c138bc 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fexit_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fexit_test.c
@@ -3,35 +3,56 @@
#include <test_progs.h>
#include "fexit_test.skel.h"
-void test_fexit_test(void)
+static int fexit_test(struct fexit_test *fexit_skel)
{
- struct fexit_test *fexit_skel = NULL;
int err, prog_fd, i;
__u32 duration = 0, retval;
+ struct bpf_link *link;
__u64 *result;
- fexit_skel = fexit_test__open_and_load();
- if (CHECK(!fexit_skel, "fexit_skel_load", "fexit skeleton failed\n"))
- goto cleanup;
-
err = fexit_test__attach(fexit_skel);
- if (CHECK(err, "fexit_attach", "fexit attach failed: %d\n", err))
- goto cleanup;
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "fexit_attach"))
+ return err;
+
+ /* Check that already linked program can't be attached again. */
+ link = bpf_program__attach(fexit_skel->progs.test1);
+ if (!ASSERT_ERR_PTR(link, "fexit_attach_link"))
+ return -1;
prog_fd = bpf_program__fd(fexit_skel->progs.test1);
err = bpf_prog_test_run(prog_fd, 1, NULL, 0,
NULL, NULL, &retval, &duration);
- CHECK(err || retval, "test_run",
- "err %d errno %d retval %d duration %d\n",
- err, errno, retval, duration);
+ ASSERT_OK(err || retval, "test_run");
result = (__u64 *)fexit_skel->bss;
- for (i = 0; i < 6; i++) {
- if (CHECK(result[i] != 1, "result",
- "fexit_test%d failed err %lld\n", i + 1, result[i]))
- goto cleanup;
+ for (i = 0; i < sizeof(*fexit_skel->bss) / sizeof(__u64); i++) {
+ if (!ASSERT_EQ(result[i], 1, "fexit_result"))
+ return -1;
}
+ fexit_test__detach(fexit_skel);
+
+ /* zero results for re-attach test */
+ memset(fexit_skel->bss, 0, sizeof(*fexit_skel->bss));
+ return 0;
+}
+
+void test_fexit_test(void)
+{
+ struct fexit_test *fexit_skel = NULL;
+ int err;
+
+ fexit_skel = fexit_test__open_and_load();
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(fexit_skel, "fexit_skel_load"))
+ goto cleanup;
+
+ err = fexit_test(fexit_skel);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "fexit_first_attach"))
+ goto cleanup;
+
+ err = fexit_test(fexit_skel);
+ ASSERT_OK(err, "fexit_second_attach");
+
cleanup:
fexit_test__destroy(fexit_skel);
}
--
2.30.2
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCHv4 bpf-next 3/5] selftests/bpf: Add re-attach test to fexit_test
2021-04-12 16:25 ` [PATCHv4 bpf-next 3/5] selftests/bpf: Add re-attach test to fexit_test Jiri Olsa
@ 2021-04-13 21:55 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-04-14 11:01 ` Jiri Olsa
0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Andrii Nakryiko @ 2021-04-13 21:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jiri Olsa
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko, Networking,
bpf, Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu, Yonghong Song, John Fastabend,
KP Singh, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen, Julia Lawall
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 9:30 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Adding the test to re-attach (detach/attach again) tracing
> fexit programs, plus check that already linked program can't
> be attached again.
>
> Also switching to ASSERT* macros.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
> ---
> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fexit_test.c | 51 +++++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fexit_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fexit_test.c
> index 78d7a2765c27..c48e10c138bc 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fexit_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fexit_test.c
> @@ -3,35 +3,56 @@
> #include <test_progs.h>
> #include "fexit_test.skel.h"
>
> -void test_fexit_test(void)
> +static int fexit_test(struct fexit_test *fexit_skel)
> {
> - struct fexit_test *fexit_skel = NULL;
> int err, prog_fd, i;
> __u32 duration = 0, retval;
> + struct bpf_link *link;
> __u64 *result;
>
> - fexit_skel = fexit_test__open_and_load();
> - if (CHECK(!fexit_skel, "fexit_skel_load", "fexit skeleton failed\n"))
> - goto cleanup;
> -
> err = fexit_test__attach(fexit_skel);
> - if (CHECK(err, "fexit_attach", "fexit attach failed: %d\n", err))
> - goto cleanup;
> + if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "fexit_attach"))
> + return err;
> +
> + /* Check that already linked program can't be attached again. */
> + link = bpf_program__attach(fexit_skel->progs.test1);
> + if (!ASSERT_ERR_PTR(link, "fexit_attach_link"))
> + return -1;
>
> prog_fd = bpf_program__fd(fexit_skel->progs.test1);
> err = bpf_prog_test_run(prog_fd, 1, NULL, 0,
> NULL, NULL, &retval, &duration);
> - CHECK(err || retval, "test_run",
> - "err %d errno %d retval %d duration %d\n",
> - err, errno, retval, duration);
> + ASSERT_OK(err || retval, "test_run");
same as in previous patch
With this fixed, feel free to add my ack to this and previous patch. Thanks!
>
> result = (__u64 *)fexit_skel->bss;
> - for (i = 0; i < 6; i++) {
> - if (CHECK(result[i] != 1, "result",
> - "fexit_test%d failed err %lld\n", i + 1, result[i]))
> - goto cleanup;
> + for (i = 0; i < sizeof(*fexit_skel->bss) / sizeof(__u64); i++) {
> + if (!ASSERT_EQ(result[i], 1, "fexit_result"))
> + return -1;
> }
>
> + fexit_test__detach(fexit_skel);
> +
> + /* zero results for re-attach test */
> + memset(fexit_skel->bss, 0, sizeof(*fexit_skel->bss));
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +void test_fexit_test(void)
> +{
> + struct fexit_test *fexit_skel = NULL;
> + int err;
> +
> + fexit_skel = fexit_test__open_and_load();
> + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(fexit_skel, "fexit_skel_load"))
> + goto cleanup;
> +
> + err = fexit_test(fexit_skel);
> + if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "fexit_first_attach"))
> + goto cleanup;
> +
> + err = fexit_test(fexit_skel);
> + ASSERT_OK(err, "fexit_second_attach");
> +
> cleanup:
> fexit_test__destroy(fexit_skel);
> }
> --
> 2.30.2
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCHv4 bpf-next 3/5] selftests/bpf: Add re-attach test to fexit_test
2021-04-13 21:55 ` Andrii Nakryiko
@ 2021-04-14 11:01 ` Jiri Olsa
0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Jiri Olsa @ 2021-04-14 11:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrii Nakryiko
Cc: Jiri Olsa, Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko,
Networking, bpf, Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu, Yonghong Song,
John Fastabend, KP Singh, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen,
Julia Lawall
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 02:55:32PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 9:30 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Adding the test to re-attach (detach/attach again) tracing
> > fexit programs, plus check that already linked program can't
> > be attached again.
> >
> > Also switching to ASSERT* macros.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
> > ---
> > .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fexit_test.c | 51 +++++++++++++------
> > 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fexit_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fexit_test.c
> > index 78d7a2765c27..c48e10c138bc 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fexit_test.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fexit_test.c
> > @@ -3,35 +3,56 @@
> > #include <test_progs.h>
> > #include "fexit_test.skel.h"
> >
> > -void test_fexit_test(void)
> > +static int fexit_test(struct fexit_test *fexit_skel)
> > {
> > - struct fexit_test *fexit_skel = NULL;
> > int err, prog_fd, i;
> > __u32 duration = 0, retval;
> > + struct bpf_link *link;
> > __u64 *result;
> >
> > - fexit_skel = fexit_test__open_and_load();
> > - if (CHECK(!fexit_skel, "fexit_skel_load", "fexit skeleton failed\n"))
> > - goto cleanup;
> > -
> > err = fexit_test__attach(fexit_skel);
> > - if (CHECK(err, "fexit_attach", "fexit attach failed: %d\n", err))
> > - goto cleanup;
> > + if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "fexit_attach"))
> > + return err;
> > +
> > + /* Check that already linked program can't be attached again. */
> > + link = bpf_program__attach(fexit_skel->progs.test1);
> > + if (!ASSERT_ERR_PTR(link, "fexit_attach_link"))
> > + return -1;
> >
> > prog_fd = bpf_program__fd(fexit_skel->progs.test1);
> > err = bpf_prog_test_run(prog_fd, 1, NULL, 0,
> > NULL, NULL, &retval, &duration);
> > - CHECK(err || retval, "test_run",
> > - "err %d errno %d retval %d duration %d\n",
> > - err, errno, retval, duration);
> > + ASSERT_OK(err || retval, "test_run");
>
> same as in previous patch
>
> With this fixed, feel free to add my ack to this and previous patch. Thanks!
ok, thanks,
jirka
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [PATCHv4 bpf-next 4/5] selftests/bpf: Add re-attach test to lsm test
2021-04-12 16:24 [PATCHv4 bpf-next 0/5] bpf: Tracing and lsm programs re-attach Jiri Olsa
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2021-04-12 16:25 ` [PATCHv4 bpf-next 3/5] selftests/bpf: Add re-attach test to fexit_test Jiri Olsa
@ 2021-04-12 16:25 ` Jiri Olsa
2021-04-13 21:57 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-04-12 16:25 ` [PATCHv4 bpf-next 5/5] selftests/bpf: Test that module can't be unloaded with attached trampoline Jiri Olsa
4 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Jiri Olsa @ 2021-04-12 16:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko
Cc: netdev, bpf, Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu, Yonghong Song,
John Fastabend, KP Singh, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen,
Julia Lawall
Adding the test to re-attach (detach/attach again) lsm programs,
plus check that already linked program can't be attached again.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
---
.../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_lsm.c | 48 +++++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_lsm.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_lsm.c
index 2755e4f81499..d492e76e01cf 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_lsm.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_lsm.c
@@ -18,6 +18,8 @@ char *CMD_ARGS[] = {"true", NULL};
#define GET_PAGE_ADDR(ADDR, PAGE_SIZE) \
(char *)(((unsigned long) (ADDR + PAGE_SIZE)) & ~(PAGE_SIZE-1))
+static int duration = 0;
+
int stack_mprotect(void)
{
void *buf;
@@ -51,23 +53,25 @@ int exec_cmd(int *monitored_pid)
return -EINVAL;
}
-void test_test_lsm(void)
+static int test_lsm(struct lsm *skel)
{
- struct lsm *skel = NULL;
- int err, duration = 0;
+ struct bpf_link *link;
int buf = 1234;
-
- skel = lsm__open_and_load();
- if (CHECK(!skel, "skel_load", "lsm skeleton failed\n"))
- goto close_prog;
+ int err;
err = lsm__attach(skel);
if (CHECK(err, "attach", "lsm attach failed: %d\n", err))
- goto close_prog;
+ return err;
+
+ /* Check that already linked program can't be attached again. */
+ link = bpf_program__attach(skel->progs.test_int_hook);
+ if (CHECK(!IS_ERR(link), "attach_link",
+ "re-attach without detach should not succeed"))
+ return -1;
err = exec_cmd(&skel->bss->monitored_pid);
if (CHECK(err < 0, "exec_cmd", "err %d errno %d\n", err, errno))
- goto close_prog;
+ return err;
CHECK(skel->bss->bprm_count != 1, "bprm_count", "bprm_count = %d\n",
skel->bss->bprm_count);
@@ -77,7 +81,7 @@ void test_test_lsm(void)
err = stack_mprotect();
if (CHECK(errno != EPERM, "stack_mprotect", "want err=EPERM, got %d\n",
errno))
- goto close_prog;
+ return err;
CHECK(skel->bss->mprotect_count != 1, "mprotect_count",
"mprotect_count = %d\n", skel->bss->mprotect_count);
@@ -89,6 +93,30 @@ void test_test_lsm(void)
CHECK(skel->bss->copy_test != 3, "copy_test",
"copy_test = %d\n", skel->bss->copy_test);
+ lsm__detach(skel);
+
+ skel->bss->copy_test = 0;
+ skel->bss->bprm_count = 0;
+ skel->bss->mprotect_count = 0;
+ return 0;
+}
+
+void test_test_lsm(void)
+{
+ struct lsm *skel = NULL;
+ int err;
+
+ skel = lsm__open_and_load();
+ if (CHECK(!skel, "lsm_skel_load", "lsm skeleton failed\n"))
+ goto close_prog;
+
+ err = test_lsm(skel);
+ if (CHECK(err, "test_lsm", "first attach failed\n"))
+ goto close_prog;
+
+ err = test_lsm(skel);
+ CHECK(err, "test_lsm", "second attach failed\n");
+
close_prog:
lsm__destroy(skel);
}
--
2.30.2
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCHv4 bpf-next 4/5] selftests/bpf: Add re-attach test to lsm test
2021-04-12 16:25 ` [PATCHv4 bpf-next 4/5] selftests/bpf: Add re-attach test to lsm test Jiri Olsa
@ 2021-04-13 21:57 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-04-14 10:54 ` Jiri Olsa
0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Andrii Nakryiko @ 2021-04-13 21:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jiri Olsa
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko, Networking,
bpf, Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu, Yonghong Song, John Fastabend,
KP Singh, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen, Julia Lawall
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 9:31 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Adding the test to re-attach (detach/attach again) lsm programs,
> plus check that already linked program can't be attached again.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
> ---
> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_lsm.c | 48 +++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
Surprised you didn't switch this one to ASSERT, but ok, we can do it
some other time ;)
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_lsm.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_lsm.c
> index 2755e4f81499..d492e76e01cf 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_lsm.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_lsm.c
> @@ -18,6 +18,8 @@ char *CMD_ARGS[] = {"true", NULL};
> #define GET_PAGE_ADDR(ADDR, PAGE_SIZE) \
> (char *)(((unsigned long) (ADDR + PAGE_SIZE)) & ~(PAGE_SIZE-1))
>
[...]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCHv4 bpf-next 4/5] selftests/bpf: Add re-attach test to lsm test
2021-04-13 21:57 ` Andrii Nakryiko
@ 2021-04-14 10:54 ` Jiri Olsa
0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Jiri Olsa @ 2021-04-14 10:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrii Nakryiko
Cc: Jiri Olsa, Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko,
Networking, bpf, Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu, Yonghong Song,
John Fastabend, KP Singh, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen,
Julia Lawall
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 02:57:26PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 9:31 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Adding the test to re-attach (detach/attach again) lsm programs,
> > plus check that already linked program can't be attached again.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
> > ---
> > .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_lsm.c | 48 +++++++++++++++----
> > 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >
>
> Surprised you didn't switch this one to ASSERT, but ok, we can do it
> some other time ;)
yep, I commented on that in the previous version ;-)
- used ASSERT* macros apart from lsm test, which is using
CHECKs all over the place [Andrii]
I think it should go to separate patch, so it won't shade
the actual change
jirka
>
> Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
>
>
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_lsm.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_lsm.c
> > index 2755e4f81499..d492e76e01cf 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_lsm.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_lsm.c
> > @@ -18,6 +18,8 @@ char *CMD_ARGS[] = {"true", NULL};
> > #define GET_PAGE_ADDR(ADDR, PAGE_SIZE) \
> > (char *)(((unsigned long) (ADDR + PAGE_SIZE)) & ~(PAGE_SIZE-1))
> >
>
> [...]
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [PATCHv4 bpf-next 5/5] selftests/bpf: Test that module can't be unloaded with attached trampoline
2021-04-12 16:24 [PATCHv4 bpf-next 0/5] bpf: Tracing and lsm programs re-attach Jiri Olsa
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2021-04-12 16:25 ` [PATCHv4 bpf-next 4/5] selftests/bpf: Add re-attach test to lsm test Jiri Olsa
@ 2021-04-12 16:25 ` Jiri Olsa
4 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Jiri Olsa @ 2021-04-12 16:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko
Cc: Andrii Nakryiko, netdev, bpf, Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu,
Yonghong Song, John Fastabend, KP Singh,
Toke Høiland-Jørgensen, Julia Lawall
Adding test to verify that once we attach module's trampoline,
the module can't be unloaded.
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
---
.../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/module_attach.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/module_attach.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/module_attach.c
index 5bc53d53d86e..d85a69b7ce44 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/module_attach.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/module_attach.c
@@ -45,12 +45,18 @@ static int trigger_module_test_write(int write_sz)
return 0;
}
+static int delete_module(const char *name, int flags)
+{
+ return syscall(__NR_delete_module, name, flags);
+}
+
void test_module_attach(void)
{
const int READ_SZ = 456;
const int WRITE_SZ = 457;
struct test_module_attach* skel;
struct test_module_attach__bss *bss;
+ struct bpf_link *link;
int err;
skel = test_module_attach__open();
@@ -84,6 +90,23 @@ void test_module_attach(void)
ASSERT_EQ(bss->fexit_ret, -EIO, "fexit_tet");
ASSERT_EQ(bss->fmod_ret_read_sz, READ_SZ, "fmod_ret");
+ test_module_attach__detach(skel);
+
+ /* attach fentry/fexit and make sure it get's module reference */
+ link = bpf_program__attach(skel->progs.handle_fentry);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(link, "attach_fentry"))
+ goto cleanup;
+
+ ASSERT_ERR(delete_module("bpf_testmod", 0), "delete_module");
+ bpf_link__destroy(link);
+
+ link = bpf_program__attach(skel->progs.handle_fexit);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(link, "attach_fexit"))
+ goto cleanup;
+
+ ASSERT_ERR(delete_module("bpf_testmod", 0), "delete_module");
+ bpf_link__destroy(link);
+
cleanup:
test_module_attach__destroy(skel);
}
--
2.30.2
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread