From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
To: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Cc: Krzesimir Nowak <krzesimir@kinvolk.io>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>,
Kernel Team <kernel-team@fb.com>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@fb.com>,
bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] selftests/bpf: remove logic duplication in test_verifier.c
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 08:45:43 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAEf4BzacDoKwSbBQxMK9eP8ETyD-RWnYYZtucozoVQsJ75Ymjg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d6ff6022-56f7-de63-d3e1-8949360296ca@iogearbox.net>
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 6:57 AM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> wrote:
>
> On 07/12/2019 09:53 AM, Krzesimir Nowak wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 4:43 PM Andrii Nakryiko
> > <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 5:13 AM Krzesimir Nowak <krzesimir@kinvolk.io> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 3:08 AM Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> test_verifier tests can specify single- and multi-runs tests. Internally
> >>>> logic of handling them is duplicated. Get rid of it by making single run
> >>>> retval specification to be a first retvals spec.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cc: Krzesimir Nowak <krzesimir@kinvolk.io>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>
> >>>
> >>> Looks good, one nit below.
> >>>
> >>> Acked-by: Krzesimir Nowak <krzesimir@kinvolk.io>
> >>>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 37 ++++++++++-----------
> >>>> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> >>>> index b0773291012a..120ecdf4a7db 100644
> >>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> >>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> >>>> @@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ struct bpf_test {
> >>>> int fixup_sk_storage_map[MAX_FIXUPS];
> >>>> const char *errstr;
> >>>> const char *errstr_unpriv;
> >>>> - uint32_t retval, retval_unpriv, insn_processed;
> >>>> + uint32_t insn_processed;
> >>>> int prog_len;
> >>>> enum {
> >>>> UNDEF,
> >>>> @@ -95,16 +95,24 @@ struct bpf_test {
> >>>> } result, result_unpriv;
> >>>> enum bpf_prog_type prog_type;
> >>>> uint8_t flags;
> >>>> - __u8 data[TEST_DATA_LEN];
> >>>> void (*fill_helper)(struct bpf_test *self);
> >>>> uint8_t runs;
> >>>> - struct {
> >>>> - uint32_t retval, retval_unpriv;
> >>>> - union {
> >>>> - __u8 data[TEST_DATA_LEN];
> >>>> - __u64 data64[TEST_DATA_LEN / 8];
> >>>> + union {
> >>>> + struct {
> >>>
> >>> Maybe consider moving the struct definition outside to further the
> >>> removal of the duplication?
> >>
> >> Can't do that because then retval/retval_unpriv/data won't be
> >> accessible as a normal field of struct bpf_test. It has to be in
> >> anonymous structs/unions, unfortunately.
> >>
> >
> > Ah, right.
> >
> > Meh.
> >
> > I tried something like this:
> >
> > #define BPF_DATA_STRUCT \
> > struct { \
> > uint32_t retval, retval_unpriv; \
> > union { \
> > __u8 data[TEST_DATA_LEN]; \
> > __u64 data64[TEST_DATA_LEN / 8]; \
> > }; \
> > }
> >
> > and then:
> >
> > union {
> > BPF_DATA_STRUCT;
> > BPF_DATA_STRUCT retvals[MAX_TEST_RUNS];
> > };
> >
> > And that seems to compile at least. But question is: is this
> > acceptably ugly or unacceptably ugly? :)
>
> Both a bit ugly, but I'd have a slight preference towards the above,
> perhaps a bit more readable like:
Heh, I had slight preference the other way :) I'll update diff with
macro, though.
>
> #define bpf_testdata_struct_t \
> struct { \
> uint32_t retval, retval_unpriv; \
> union { \
> __u8 data[TEST_DATA_LEN]; \
> __u64 data64[TEST_DATA_LEN / 8]; \
> }; \
> }
> union {
> bpf_testdata_struct_t;
> bpf_testdata_struct_t retvals[MAX_TEST_RUNS];
> };
>
> Thanks,
> Daniel
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-12 15:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-07-11 1:08 [PATCH bpf-next] selftests/bpf: remove logic duplication in test_verifier.c Andrii Nakryiko
2019-07-11 12:13 ` Krzesimir Nowak
2019-07-11 14:43 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2019-07-12 7:53 ` Krzesimir Nowak
2019-07-12 13:57 ` Daniel Borkmann
2019-07-12 15:45 ` Andrii Nakryiko [this message]
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=CAEf4BzacDoKwSbBQxMK9eP8ETyD-RWnYYZtucozoVQsJ75Ymjg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
--cc=andriin@fb.com \
--cc=ast@fb.com \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=krzesimir@kinvolk.io \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/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).