From: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Cc: bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
"Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@redhat.com>,
"Alexei Starovoitov" <ast@kernel.org>,
"Daniel Borkmann" <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
"Andrii Nakryiko" <andrii@kernel.org>,
"Martin KaFai Lau" <kafai@fb.com>,
"Song Liu" <songliubraving@fb.com>, "Yonghong Song" <yhs@fb.com>,
"John Fastabend" <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
"KP Singh" <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
"Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@kernel.org>,
"Jesper Dangaard Brouer" <brouer@redhat.com>,
"Shaun Crampton" <shaun@tigera.io>,
Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 3/3] libbpf: add selftests for TC-BPF API
Date: Sat, 1 May 2021 12:04:36 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210501063436.fcts6od3ua2mxojl@apollo> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEf4BzYp1uN4E_=0N7DpwkEQOxntP0riz__yUzz3xu=k4yJ4sw@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, May 01, 2021 at 01:11:47AM IST, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 9:26 AM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
> <memxor@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > This adds some basic tests for the low level bpf_tc_* API.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > .../testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tc_bpf.c | 467 ++++++++++++++++++
> > .../testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_tc_bpf.c | 12 +
> > 2 files changed, 479 insertions(+)
> > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tc_bpf.c
> > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_tc_bpf.c
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tc_bpf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tc_bpf.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..40441f4e23e2
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tc_bpf.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,467 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > +
> > +#include <test_progs.h>
> > +#include <linux/pkt_cls.h>
> > +
> > +#include "test_tc_bpf.skel.h"
> > +
> > +#define LO_IFINDEX 1
> > +
> > +static int test_tc_internal(const struct bpf_tc_hook *hook, int fd)
> > +{
> > + DECLARE_LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_tc_opts, opts, .handle = 1, .priority = 1,
> > + .prog_fd = fd);
>
> we have 100 characters, if needed, use it to keep it on the single line
>
Ok.
> > + struct bpf_prog_info info = {};
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + ret = bpf_obj_get_info_by_fd(fd, &info, &(__u32){sizeof(info)});
>
> as in previous patch, don't do this
>
> > + if (!ASSERT_OK(ret, "bpf_obj_get_info_by_fd"))
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + ret = bpf_tc_attach(hook, &opts, 0);
> > + if (!ASSERT_OK(ret, "bpf_tc_attach"))
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + if (!ASSERT_EQ(opts.handle, 1, "handle set") ||
> > + !ASSERT_EQ(opts.priority, 1, "priority set") ||
> > + !ASSERT_EQ(opts.prog_id, info.id, "prog_id set"))
> > + goto end;
> > +
> > + DECLARE_LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_tc_opts, info_opts, .prog_fd = fd);
>
> this is not C89, please move variable declarations to the top
>
> > + ret = bpf_tc_query(hook, &info_opts);
> > + if (!ASSERT_OK(ret, "bpf_tc_query"))
> > + goto end;
> > +
> > + DECLARE_LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_tc_opts, info_opts2, .prog_id = info.id);
>
> and here
>
> > + ret = bpf_tc_query(hook, &info_opts2);
> > + if (!ASSERT_OK(ret, "bpf_tc_query"))
> > + goto end;
> > +
> > + if (!ASSERT_EQ(opts.handle, 1, "handle set") ||
> > + !ASSERT_EQ(opts.priority, 1, "priority set") ||
> > + !ASSERT_EQ(opts.prog_id, info.id, "prog_id set"))
> > + goto end;
> > +
> > + opts.prog_id = 0;
> > + ret = bpf_tc_attach(hook, &opts, BPF_TC_F_REPLACE);
> > + if (!ASSERT_OK(ret, "bpf_tc_attach replace mode"))
> > + return ret;
>
> goto end?
>
Yes, thanks for spotting it.
> > +
> > +end:
> > + opts.prog_fd = opts.prog_id = 0;
> > + ret = bpf_tc_detach(hook, &opts);
> > + ASSERT_OK(ret, "bpf_tc_detach");
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
>
> [...]
>
> > +
> > + /* attach */
> > + ret = bpf_tc_attach(NULL, &attach_opts, 0);
> > + if (!ASSERT_EQ(ret, -EINVAL, "bpf_tc_attach invalid hook = NULL"))
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + ret = bpf_tc_attach(hook, &attach_opts, 42);
> > + if (!ASSERT_EQ(ret, -EINVAL, "bpf_tc_attach invalid flags"))
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + attach_opts.prog_fd = 0;
> > + ret = bpf_tc_attach(hook, &attach_opts, 0);
> > + if (!ASSERT_EQ(ret, -EINVAL, "bpf_tc_attach invalid prog_fd unset"))
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + attach_opts.prog_fd = fd;
> > + attach_opts.prog_id = 42;
> > + ret = bpf_tc_attach(hook, &attach_opts, 0);
> > + if (!ASSERT_EQ(ret, -EINVAL, "bpf_tc_attach invalid prog_id set"))
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + attach_opts.prog_id = 0;
> > + attach_opts.handle = 0;
> > + ret = bpf_tc_attach(hook, &attach_opts, 0);
> > + if (!ASSERT_OK(ret, "bpf_tc_attach valid handle unset"))
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + attach_opts.prog_fd = attach_opts.prog_id = 0;
> > + ASSERT_OK(bpf_tc_detach(hook, &attach_opts), "bpf_tc_detach");
>
> this code is quite hard to follow, maybe sprinkle empty lines between
> logical groups of statements (i.e., prepare inputs + call bpf_tc_xxx +
> assert is one group that goes together)
>
I agree it looks bad. I can also just make a new opts for each combination, and
name it that way. Maybe that will look much better.
> > + attach_opts.prog_fd = fd;
> > + attach_opts.handle = 1;
> > + attach_opts.priority = 0;
> > + ret = bpf_tc_attach(hook, &attach_opts, 0);
> > + if (!ASSERT_OK(ret, "bpf_tc_attach valid priority unset"))
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + attach_opts.prog_fd = attach_opts.prog_id = 0;
> > + ASSERT_OK(bpf_tc_detach(hook, &attach_opts), "bpf_tc_detach");
> > + attach_opts.prog_fd = fd;
> > + attach_opts.priority = UINT16_MAX + 1;
> > + ret = bpf_tc_attach(hook, &attach_opts, 0);
> > + if (!ASSERT_EQ(ret, -EINVAL, "bpf_tc_attach invalid priority > UINT16_MAX"))
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + attach_opts.priority = 0;
> > + attach_opts.handle = attach_opts.priority = 0;
> > + ret = bpf_tc_attach(hook, &attach_opts, 0);
> > + if (!ASSERT_OK(ret, "bpf_tc_attach valid both handle and priority unset"))
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + attach_opts.prog_fd = attach_opts.prog_id = 0;
> > + ASSERT_OK(bpf_tc_detach(hook, &attach_opts), "bpf_tc_detach");
> > + ret = bpf_tc_attach(hook, NULL, 0);
> > + if (!ASSERT_EQ(ret, -EINVAL, "bpf_tc_attach invalid opts = NULL"))
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int test_tc_query(const struct bpf_tc_hook *hook, int fd)
> > +{
> > + struct test_tc_bpf *skel = NULL;
> > + int new_fd, ret, i = 0;
> > +
> > + skel = test_tc_bpf__open_and_load();
> > + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "test_tc_bpf__open_and_load"))
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + new_fd = bpf_program__fd(skel->progs.cls);
> > +
> > + /* make sure no other filters are attached */
> > + ret = bpf_tc_query(hook, NULL);
> > + if (!ASSERT_EQ(ret, -ENOENT, "bpf_tc_query == -ENOENT"))
> > + goto end_destroy;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
> > + DECLARE_LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_tc_opts, opts, .prog_fd = fd);
>
> empty line after variable declaration
>
Ok, will fix everywhere.
> > + ret = bpf_tc_attach(hook, &opts, 0);
> > + if (!ASSERT_OK(ret, "bpf_tc_attach"))
> > + goto end;
> > + }
> > + DECLARE_LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_tc_opts, opts, .handle = 1, .priority = 1,
> > + .prog_fd = new_fd);
> > + ret = bpf_tc_attach(hook, &opts, 0);
> > + if (!ASSERT_OK(ret, "bpf_tc_attach"))
> > + goto end;
> > + i++;
> > +
> > + ASSERT_EQ(opts.handle, 1, "handle match");
> > + ASSERT_EQ(opts.priority, 1, "priority match");
> > + ASSERT_NEQ(opts.prog_id, 0, "prog_id set");
> > +
> > + opts.prog_fd = 0;
> > + /* search with handle, priority, prog_id */
> > + ret = bpf_tc_query(hook, &opts);
> > + if (!ASSERT_OK(ret, "bpf_tc_query"))
> > + goto end;
> > +
> > + ASSERT_EQ(opts.handle, 1, "handle match");
> > + ASSERT_EQ(opts.priority, 1, "priority match");
> > + ASSERT_NEQ(opts.prog_id, 0, "prog_id set");
> > +
> > + opts.priority = opts.prog_fd = 0;
> > + /* search with handle, prog_id */
> > + ret = bpf_tc_query(hook, &opts);
> > + if (!ASSERT_OK(ret, "bpf_tc_query"))
> > + goto end;
> > +
> > + ASSERT_EQ(opts.handle, 1, "handle match");
> > + ASSERT_EQ(opts.priority, 1, "priority match");
> > + ASSERT_NEQ(opts.prog_id, 0, "prog_id set");
> > +
> > + opts.handle = opts.prog_fd = 0;
> > + /* search with priority, prog_id */
> > + ret = bpf_tc_query(hook, &opts);
> > + if (!ASSERT_OK(ret, "bpf_tc_query"))
> > + goto end;
> > +
> > + ASSERT_EQ(opts.handle, 1, "handle match");
> > + ASSERT_EQ(opts.priority, 1, "priority match");
> > + ASSERT_NEQ(opts.prog_id, 0, "prog_id set");
> > +
> > + opts.handle = opts.priority = opts.prog_fd = 0;
> > + /* search with prog_id */
> > + ret = bpf_tc_query(hook, &opts);
> > + if (!ASSERT_OK(ret, "bpf_tc_query"))
> > + goto end;
> > +
> > + ASSERT_EQ(opts.handle, 1, "handle match");
> > + ASSERT_EQ(opts.priority, 1, "priority match");
> > + ASSERT_NEQ(opts.prog_id, 0, "prog_id set");
> > +
> > + while (i != 1) {
> > + DECLARE_LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_tc_opts, del_opts, .prog_fd = fd);
>
> empty line here
>
> > + ret = bpf_tc_query(hook, &del_opts);
> > + if (!ASSERT_OK(ret, "bpf_tc_query"))
> > + goto end;
> > + ASSERT_NEQ(del_opts.prog_id, opts.prog_id, "prog_id should not be same");
> > + ASSERT_NEQ(del_opts.priority, 1, "priority should not be 1");
> > + del_opts.prog_fd = del_opts.prog_id = 0;
> > + ret = bpf_tc_detach(hook, &del_opts);
> > + if (!ASSERT_OK(ret, "bpf_tc_detach"))
> > + goto end;
> > + i--;
> > + }
> > +
> > + opts.handle = opts.priority = opts.prog_id = 0;
> > + opts.prog_fd = fd;
> > + ret = bpf_tc_query(hook, &opts);
> > + ASSERT_EQ(ret, -ENOENT, "bpf_tc_query == -ENOENT");
> > +
> > +end:
> > + while (i--) {
> > + DECLARE_LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_tc_opts, del_opts, 0);
>
> you get the idea by now
>
> > + ret = bpf_tc_query(hook, &del_opts);
> > + if (!ASSERT_OK(ret, "bpf_tc_query"))
> > + break;
> > + del_opts.prog_id = 0;
> > + ret = bpf_tc_detach(hook, &del_opts);
> > + if (!ASSERT_OK(ret, "bpf_tc_detach"))
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + ASSERT_EQ(bpf_tc_query(hook, NULL), -ENOENT, "bpf_tc_query == -ENOENT");
> > +end_destroy:
> > + test_tc_bpf__destroy(skel);
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
>
> [...]
--
Kartikeya
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-01 6:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-28 16:25 [PATCH bpf-next v5 0/3] Add TC-BPF API Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2021-04-28 16:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 1/3] libbpf: add netlink helpers Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2021-04-30 19:04 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-05-01 6:13 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2021-05-03 22:47 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-04-28 16:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 2/3] libbpf: add low level TC-BPF API Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2021-04-30 19:35 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-05-01 6:32 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2021-05-03 22:54 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-05-03 23:11 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2021-04-28 16:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 3/3] libbpf: add selftests for " Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2021-04-30 19:41 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-05-01 6:34 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi [this message]
2021-05-03 22:55 ` Andrii Nakryiko
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210501063436.fcts6od3ua2mxojl@apollo \
--to=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=brouer@redhat.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=kafai@fb.com \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shaun@tigera.io \
--cc=songliubraving@fb.com \
--cc=toke@redhat.com \
--cc=yhs@fb.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).