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=-6.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable 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 4CA5AC74A52 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 11:36:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26ADF21537 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 11:36:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=kinvolk.io header.i=@kinvolk.io header.b="Hi3T9qq9" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728446AbfGKLgU (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jul 2019 07:36:20 -0400 Received: from mail-lj1-f194.google.com ([209.85.208.194]:39805 "EHLO mail-lj1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728423AbfGKLgU (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jul 2019 07:36:20 -0400 Received: by mail-lj1-f194.google.com with SMTP id v18so5413430ljh.6 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 04:36:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kinvolk.io; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gowXtkeVITMmhGMj1myvSJOoQpKoOyUOuod6NvEyUrE=; b=Hi3T9qq9ZX2sD6OlJP2ck97V/bj59SRLuwSyxxvXrRXXQ7MdIFdmokLyXz1I3YuyMI OjeEYxUSQP/RtaA9jySG2RYRwt5j0L9EebWyTCfzAaXTdb0N0G4UlYRz3gun5bdokWfp xfRZrdk7ROnWHkyDLzvFZItkw9P76vDvWIOIQ= 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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gowXtkeVITMmhGMj1myvSJOoQpKoOyUOuod6NvEyUrE=; b=BXK15ZoL+MT+L1SH4N6L4/kfkdU78HGA+CG7mIjkPreDMxFXGt4uOPHpFF7RFiPUUH C8NAhTx4bsbjL7cTJ1jWxtnX4WEYdwXRLnbtFUJ25cec207Sj/bcCjyEi10i62qE+Kd9 KQOjnJhkBZF8WO3MqKf+xwC8sb1Lqaf5xKTiO6QItYWT1/FAND8Z3BIp2NCO1E2ANN2N mhDj9Az/hdZhf9DKefOxo9PmtO34V0Uea260CG+Q7h79+HCrxbf5SPCRZ8Z/T5OJWHMJ ysu6+HLqqoWoOZqa7YOtlOZCkEFJdwwYrfOX8PEmItnWtDy5EfnLAfjhgPNKbE8NtMqT b8hA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX+vTx2pf9qSc8PJVAtps8IzOww0rg7x4dEsgO9WYc9Ig62Id3H OZXGqS6veAnJcnW4dho+UsbTOowwQ+jCfjfCEKOw2A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw5kNwuodXhvfXQH8fkFgdYYPfLmFnNga2XZAN6tMleSYRmWD7F5IxzAkKPtB74MWYBqSNrYa4ydBrrUmyskFE= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9188:: with SMTP id f8mr2224230ljg.33.1562844977640; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 04:36:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190708163121.18477-1-krzesimir@kinvolk.io> <20190708163121.18477-2-krzesimir@kinvolk.io> In-Reply-To: From: Krzesimir Nowak Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 13:36:06 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [bpf-next v3 01/12] selftests/bpf: Print a message when tester could not run a program To: Andrii Nakryiko Cc: open list , Alban Crequy , =?UTF-8?Q?Iago_L=C3=B3pez_Galeiras?= , Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , Martin KaFai Lau , Song Liu , Yonghong Song , "David S. Miller" , Jakub Kicinski , Jesper Dangaard Brouer , John Fastabend , Stanislav Fomichev , Networking , bpf , xdp-newbies@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 1:45 AM Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 3:42 PM Krzesimir Nowak wro= te: > > > > This prints a message when the error is about program type being not > > supported by the test runner or because of permissions problem. This > > is to see if the program we expected to run was actually executed. > > > > The messages are open-coded because strerror(ENOTSUPP) returns > > "Unknown error 524". > > > > Changes since v2: > > - Also print "FAIL" on an unexpected bpf_prog_test_run error, so there > > is a corresponding "FAIL" message for each failed test. > > > > Signed-off-by: Krzesimir Nowak > > --- > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 17 +++++++++++++---- > > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testin= g/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c > > index c5514daf8865..b8d065623ead 100644 > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c > > @@ -831,11 +831,20 @@ static int do_prog_test_run(int fd_prog, bool unp= riv, uint32_t expected_val, > > tmp, &size_tmp, &retval, NULL); > > if (unpriv) > > set_admin(false); > > - if (err && errno !=3D 524/*ENOTSUPP*/ && errno !=3D EPERM) { > > - printf("Unexpected bpf_prog_test_run error "); > > - return err; > > + if (err) { > > + switch (errno) { > > + case 524/*ENOTSUPP*/: > > + printf("Did not run the program (not supported)= "); > > + return 0; > > + case EPERM: > > + printf("Did not run the program (no permission)= "); > > Let's add "SKIP: " prefix to these? Not sure about it. The important part of the test (the program being verified by the kernel's verifier) was still executed, so the test is not really skipped. > > > + return 0; > > + default: > > + printf("FAIL: Unexpected bpf_prog_test_run erro= r (%s) ", strerror(saved_errno)); > > + return err; > > + } > > } > > - if (!err && retval !=3D expected_val && > > + if (retval !=3D expected_val && > > expected_val !=3D POINTER_VALUE) { > > printf("FAIL retval %d !=3D %d ", retval, expected_val)= ; > > return 1; > > -- > > 2.20.1 > > -- Kinvolk GmbH | Adalbertstr.6a, 10999 Berlin | tel: +491755589364 Gesch=C3=A4ftsf=C3=BChrer/Directors: Alban Crequy, Chris K=C3=BChl, Iago L= =C3=B3pez Galeiras Registergericht/Court of registration: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg Registernummer/Registration number: HRB 171414 B Ust-ID-Nummer/VAT ID number: DE302207000