I see no need for docbook style comments for static functions. Especially in test only code
On Tue, Dec 16, 2025, 10:21 Marat Khalili <[email protected]> wrote: > Add tests for some simple cases: > * Program with no instructions; > * Program with only EXIT instruction but no return value set; > * Program with return value set but no EXIT instruction; > * Minimal valid program with return value set and an EXIT instruction. > > Fix found bugs: > * a program with no instructions was accepted; > * a program with no EXIT instruction read outside the buffer. > > Signed-off-by: Marat Khalili <[email protected]> > Acked-by: Konstantin Ananyev <[email protected]> > --- > app/test/test_bpf.c | 118 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > lib/bpf/bpf_load.c | 2 +- > lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c | 20 +++++-- > 3 files changed, 135 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/app/test/test_bpf.c b/app/test/test_bpf.c > index b7c94ba1c7..6ecc49efff 100644 > --- a/app/test/test_bpf.c > +++ b/app/test/test_bpf.c > @@ -34,6 +34,124 @@ test_bpf(void) > #include <rte_ip.h> > > > +/* Tests of most simple BPF programs (no instructions, one instruction > etc.) */ > + > +/* > + * Try to load a simple bpf program from the instructions array. > + * > + * When `expected_errno` is zero, expect it to load successfully. > + * When `expected_errno` is non-zero, expect it to fail with this > `rte_errno`. > + * > + * @param nb_ins > + * Number of instructions in the `ins` array. > + * @param ins > + * BPF instructions array. > + * @param expected_errno > + * Expected result. > + * @return > + * TEST_SUCCESS on success, error code on failure. > + */ > +static int > +bpf_load_test(uint32_t nb_ins, const struct ebpf_insn *ins, int > expected_errno) > +{ > + const struct rte_bpf_prm prm = { > + .ins = ins, > + .nb_ins = nb_ins, > + .prog_arg = { > + .type = RTE_BPF_ARG_RAW, > + .size = sizeof(uint64_t), > + }, > + }; > + > + struct rte_bpf *const bpf = rte_bpf_load(&prm); > + const int actual_errno = rte_errno; > + rte_bpf_destroy(bpf); > + > + if (expected_errno != 0) { > + RTE_TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL(bpf, NULL, > + "expect rte_bpf_load() == NULL"); > + RTE_TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL(actual_errno, expected_errno, > + "expect rte_errno == %d, found %d", > + expected_errno, actual_errno); > + } else > + RTE_TEST_ASSERT_NOT_EQUAL(bpf, NULL, > + "expect rte_bpf_load() != NULL"); > + > + return TEST_SUCCESS; > +} > + > +/* > + * Try and load completely empty BPF program. > + * Should fail because there is no EXIT (and also return value is > undefined). > + */ > +static int > +test_no_instructions(void) > +{ > + static const struct ebpf_insn ins[] = {}; > + return bpf_load_test(RTE_DIM(ins), ins, EINVAL); > +} > + > +REGISTER_FAST_TEST(bpf_no_instructions_autotest, true, true, > test_no_instructions); > + > +/* > + * Try and load a BPF program comprising single EXIT instruction. > + * Should fail because the return value is undefined. > + */ > +static int > +test_exit_only(void) > +{ > + static const struct ebpf_insn ins[] = { > + { > + .code = (BPF_JMP | EBPF_EXIT), > + }, > + }; > + return bpf_load_test(RTE_DIM(ins), ins, EINVAL); > +} > + > +REGISTER_FAST_TEST(bpf_exit_only_autotest, true, true, test_exit_only); > + > +/* > + * Try and load a BPF program with no EXIT instruction. > + * Should fail because of this. > + */ > +static int > +test_no_exit(void) > +{ > + static const struct ebpf_insn ins[] = { > + { > + /* Set return value to the program argument. */ > + .code = (EBPF_ALU64 | EBPF_MOV | BPF_X), > + .src_reg = EBPF_REG_1, > + .dst_reg = EBPF_REG_0, > + }, > + }; > + return bpf_load_test(RTE_DIM(ins), ins, EINVAL); > +} > + > +REGISTER_FAST_TEST(bpf_no_exit_autotest, true, true, test_no_exit); > + > +/* > + * Try and load smallest possible valid BPF program. > + */ > +static int > +test_minimal_working(void) > +{ > + static const struct ebpf_insn ins[] = { > + { > + /* Set return value to the program argument. */ > + .code = (EBPF_ALU64 | EBPF_MOV | BPF_X), > + .src_reg = EBPF_REG_1, > + .dst_reg = EBPF_REG_0, > + }, > + { > + .code = (BPF_JMP | EBPF_EXIT), > + }, > + }; > + return bpf_load_test(RTE_DIM(ins), ins, 0); > +} > + > +REGISTER_FAST_TEST(bpf_minimal_working_autotest, true, true, > test_minimal_working); > + > /* > * Basic functional tests for librte_bpf. > * The main procedure - load eBPF program, execute it and > diff --git a/lib/bpf/bpf_load.c b/lib/bpf/bpf_load.c > index 556e613762..6983c026af 100644 > --- a/lib/bpf/bpf_load.c > +++ b/lib/bpf/bpf_load.c > @@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ rte_bpf_load(const struct rte_bpf_prm *prm) > int32_t rc; > uint32_t i; > > - if (prm == NULL || prm->ins == NULL || > + if (prm == NULL || prm->ins == NULL || prm->nb_ins == 0 || > (prm->nb_xsym != 0 && prm->xsym == NULL)) { > rte_errno = EINVAL; > return NULL; > diff --git a/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c b/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c > index 4f47d6dc7b..23444b3eaa 100644 > --- a/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c > +++ b/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c > @@ -1827,7 +1827,7 @@ add_edge(struct bpf_verifier *bvf, struct inst_node > *node, uint32_t nidx) > { > uint32_t ne; > > - if (nidx > bvf->prm->nb_ins) { > + if (nidx >= bvf->prm->nb_ins) { > RTE_BPF_LOG_LINE(ERR, > "%s: program boundary violation at pc: %u, next > pc: %u", > __func__, get_node_idx(bvf, node), nidx); > @@ -1886,14 +1886,20 @@ get_prev_node(struct bpf_verifier *bvf, struct > inst_node *node) > * Control Flow Graph (CFG). > * Information collected at this path would be used later > * to determine is there any loops, and/or unreachable instructions. > + * PREREQUISITE: there is at least one node. > */ > static void > dfs(struct bpf_verifier *bvf) > { > struct inst_node *next, *node; > > - node = bvf->in; > - while (node != NULL) { > + RTE_ASSERT(bvf->nb_nodes != 0); > + /* > + * Since there is at least one node, node with index 0 always > exists; > + * it is our program entry point. > + */ > + node = &bvf->in[0]; > + do { > > if (node->colour == WHITE) > set_node_colour(bvf, node, GREY); > @@ -1923,7 +1929,7 @@ dfs(struct bpf_verifier *bvf) > } > } else > node = NULL; > - } > + } while (node != NULL); > } > > /* > @@ -2062,6 +2068,12 @@ validate(struct bpf_verifier *bvf) > if (rc != 0) > return rc; > > + if (bvf->nb_nodes == 0) { > + RTE_BPF_LOG_LINE(ERR, "%s(%p) the program is empty", > + __func__, bvf); > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + > dfs(bvf); > > RTE_LOG(DEBUG, BPF, "%s(%p) stats:\n" > -- > 2.43.0 > >
