Re: [bpf-next v3 04/12] selftests/bpf: Use bpf_prog_test_run_xattr

From: Krzesimir Nowak <krzesimir@kinvolk.io>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Cc: "open list" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Alban Crequy" <alban@kinvolk.io>,
	"Iago López Galeiras" <iago@kinvolk.io>,
	"Alexei Starovoitov" <ast@kernel.org>,
	"Daniel Borkmann" <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	"Martin KaFai Lau" <kafai@fb.com>,
	"Song Liu" <songliubraving@fb.com>, "Yonghong Song" <yhs@fb.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	"Jakub Kicinski" <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>,
	"Jesper Dangaard Brouer" <hawk@kernel.org>,
	"John Fastabend" <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
	"Stanislav Fomichev" <sdf@google.com>,
	Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
	xdp-newbies@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [bpf-next v3 04/12] selftests/bpf: Use bpf_prog_test_run_xattr
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 14:07:24 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGGp+cGUYbdEeHJxVCk0VZvOMSoR6Fz5aUJD0Ye71w5dxETXMA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEf4BzZoOw=1B8vV53iAxz8LDULOPVF-he4C_usoUQSdXU+oSg@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 2:03 AM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 3:43 PM Krzesimir Nowak <krzesimir@kinvolk.io> wrote:
> >
> > The bpf_prog_test_run_xattr function gives more options to set up a
> > test run of a BPF program than the bpf_prog_test_run function.
> >
> > We will need this extra flexibility to pass ctx data later.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Krzesimir Nowak <krzesimir@kinvolk.io>
> > ---
>
> lgtm, with some nits below
>
> Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>
>
> >  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 16 +++++++++++-----
> >  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> > index c7541f572932..1640ba9f12c1 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> > @@ -822,14 +822,20 @@ static int do_prog_test_run(int fd_prog, bool unpriv, uint32_t expected_val,
> >  {
> >         __u8 tmp[TEST_DATA_LEN << 2];
> >         __u32 size_tmp = sizeof(tmp);
>
> nit: this is now is not needed as a separate local variable, inline?

I think I'm using this variable in a followup commit, but I'll look closely.

>
> > -       uint32_t retval;
> >         int saved_errno;
> >         int err;
> > +       struct bpf_prog_test_run_attr attr = {
> > +               .prog_fd = fd_prog,
> > +               .repeat = 1,
> > +               .data_in = data,
> > +               .data_size_in = size_data,
> > +               .data_out = tmp,
> > +               .data_size_out = size_tmp,
> > +       };
> >
> >         if (unpriv)
> >                 set_admin(true);
> > -       err = bpf_prog_test_run(fd_prog, 1, data, size_data,
> > -                               tmp, &size_tmp, &retval, NULL);
> > +       err = bpf_prog_test_run_xattr(&attr);
> >         saved_errno = errno;
> >         if (unpriv)
> >                 set_admin(false);
> > @@ -846,9 +852,9 @@ static int do_prog_test_run(int fd_prog, bool unpriv, uint32_t expected_val,
> >                         return err;
> >                 }
> >         }
> > -       if (retval != expected_val &&
> > +       if (attr.retval != expected_val &&
> >             expected_val != POINTER_VALUE) {
>
> this if condition now fits one line, can you please combine? thanks!

Sure.

>
> > -               printf("FAIL retval %d != %d ", retval, expected_val);
> > +               printf("FAIL retval %d != %d ", attr.retval, expected_val);
> >                 return 1;
> >         }
> >
> > --
> > 2.20.1
> >

-- 
Kinvolk GmbH | Adalbertstr.6a, 10999 Berlin | tel: +491755589364
Geschäftsführer/Directors: Alban Crequy, Chris Kühl, Iago López Galeiras
Registergericht/Court of registration: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg
Registernummer/Registration number: HRB 171414 B
Ust-ID-Nummer/VAT ID number: DE302207000