Yonghong Song wrote:
>
>
> On 5/21/20 7:35 AM, John Fastabend wrote:
> > The test itself is not particularly useful but it encodes a common
> > pattern we have.
> >
> > Namely do a sk storage lookup then depending on data here decide if
> > we need to do more work or alternatively allow packet to PASS. Then
> > if we need to do more work consult task_struct for more information
> > about the running task. Finally based on this additional information
> > drop or pass the data. In this case the suspicious check is not so
> > realisitic but it encodes the general pattern and uses the helpers
> > so we test the workflow.
> >
> > This is a load test to ensure verifier correctly handles this case.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sockmap_basic.c | 57
> > ++++++++++++++++++++
> > .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_skmsg_load_helpers.c | 48
> > +++++++++++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 105 insertions(+)
> > create mode 100644
> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_skmsg_load_helpers.c
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sockmap_basic.c
> > b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sockmap_basic.c
> > index aa43e0b..cacb4ad 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sockmap_basic.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sockmap_basic.c
> > @@ -1,13 +1,46 @@
> > // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > // Copyright (c) 2020 Cloudflare
> > +#include <error.h>
> >
> > #include "test_progs.h"
> > +#include "test_skmsg_load_helpers.skel.h"
> >
> > #define TCP_REPAIR 19 /* TCP sock is under repair
> > right now */
> >
> > #define TCP_REPAIR_ON 1
> > #define TCP_REPAIR_OFF_NO_WP -1 /* Turn off without window
> > probes */
> >
> > +#define _FAIL(errnum, fmt...)
> > \
> > + ({ \
> > + error_at_line(0, (errnum), __func__, __LINE__, fmt); \
> > + CHECK_FAIL(true); \
> > + })
> > +#define FAIL(fmt...) _FAIL(0, fmt)
> > +#define FAIL_ERRNO(fmt...) _FAIL(errno, fmt)
> > +#define FAIL_LIBBPF(err, msg)
> > \
> > + ({ \
> > + char __buf[MAX_STRERR_LEN]; \
> > + libbpf_strerror((err), __buf, sizeof(__buf)); \
> > + FAIL("%s: %s", (msg), __buf); \
> > + })
>
> Can we use existing macros in test_progs.h?
> This will be consistent with other test_progs selftests.
That will work. I was planning to come back and cleanup tests that are
not using the test_progs.h variants but good point no point in adding
one more.
>
> > +
> > +#define xbpf_prog_attach(prog, target, type, flags)
> > \
> > + ({ \
> > + int __ret = \
> > + bpf_prog_attach((prog), (target), (type), (flags)); \
> > + if (__ret == -1) \
> > + FAIL_ERRNO("prog_attach(" #type ")"); \
> > + __ret; \
> > + })
> > +
> > +#define xbpf_prog_detach2(prog, target, type)
> > \
> > + ({ \
> > + int __ret = bpf_prog_detach2((prog), (target), (type)); \
> > + if (__ret == -1) \
> > + FAIL_ERRNO("prog_detach2(" #type ")"); \
> > + __ret; \
> > + })
>
> The above xbpf_prog_attach() and xbpf_prog_detach2()
> are only called once, maybe fold into the calling function itself?
>
Sure.
Thanks,
John
