| Message ID | 20200924230209.2561658-4-songliubraving@fb.com |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Delegated to: | BPF Maintainers |
| Headers | show |
| Series | enable BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN for raw_tp | expand |
Song Liu wrote: > This test runs test_run for raw_tracepoint program. The test covers ctx > input, retval output, and running on correct cpu. > > Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com> > --- [...] > +void test_raw_tp_test_run(void) > +{ > + struct bpf_prog_test_run_attr test_attr = {}; > + int comm_fd = -1, err, nr_online, i, prog_fd; > + __u64 args[2] = {0x1234ULL, 0x5678ULL}; > + int expected_retval = 0x1234 + 0x5678; > + struct test_raw_tp_test_run *skel; > + char buf[] = "new_name"; > + bool *online = NULL; > + > + err = parse_cpu_mask_file("/sys/devices/system/cpu/online", &online, > + &nr_online); > + if (CHECK(err, "parse_cpu_mask_file", "err %d\n", err)) > + return; > + > + skel = test_raw_tp_test_run__open_and_load(); > + if (CHECK(!skel, "skel_open", "failed to open skeleton\n")) > + goto cleanup; > + > + err = test_raw_tp_test_run__attach(skel); > + if (CHECK(err, "skel_attach", "skeleton attach failed: %d\n", err)) > + goto cleanup; > + > + comm_fd = open("/proc/self/comm", O_WRONLY|O_TRUNC); > + if (CHECK(comm_fd < 0, "open /proc/self/comm", "err %d\n", errno)) > + goto cleanup; > + > + err = write(comm_fd, buf, sizeof(buf)); > + CHECK(err < 0, "task rename", "err %d", errno); > + > + CHECK(skel->bss->count == 0, "check_count", "didn't increase\n"); > + CHECK(skel->data->on_cpu != 0xffffffff, "check_on_cpu", "got wrong value\n"); > + > + prog_fd = bpf_program__fd(skel->progs.rename); > + test_attr.prog_fd = prog_fd; > + test_attr.ctx_in = args; > + test_attr.ctx_size_in = sizeof(__u64); > + > + err = bpf_prog_test_run_xattr(&test_attr); > + CHECK(err == 0, "test_run", "should fail for too small ctx\n"); > + > + test_attr.ctx_size_in = sizeof(args); > + err = bpf_prog_test_run_xattr(&test_attr); > + CHECK(err < 0, "test_run", "err %d\n", errno); > + CHECK(test_attr.retval != expected_retval, "check_retval", > + "expect 0x%x, got 0x%x\n", expected_retval, test_attr.retval); > + > + for (i = 0; i < nr_online; i++) { > + if (online[i]) { > + DECLARE_LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_test_run_opts, opts, > + .ctx_in = args, > + .ctx_size_in = sizeof(args), > + .flags = BPF_F_TEST_RUN_ON_CPU, > + .retval = 0, > + .cpu = i, > + ); > + > + err = bpf_prog_test_run_opts(prog_fd, &opts); > + CHECK(err < 0, "test_run_opts", "err %d\n", errno); > + CHECK(skel->data->on_cpu != i, "check_on_cpu", > + "expect %d got %d\n", i, skel->data->on_cpu); > + CHECK(opts.retval != expected_retval, > + "check_retval", "expect 0x%x, got 0x%x\n", > + expected_retval, opts.retval); > + > + if (i == 0) { > + /* invalid cpu ID should fail with ENXIO */ > + opts.cpu = 0xffffffff; > + err = bpf_prog_test_run_opts(prog_fd, &opts); > + CHECK(err != -1 || errno != ENXIO, > + "test_run_opts_fail", > + "should failed with ENXIO\n"); > + } else { One more request... How about pull this if/else branch out of the for loop here? It feels a bit clumsy as-is imo. Also is it worthwhile to bang on the else branch for evey cpu I would think testing for any non-zero value should be sufficient. > + /* non-zero cpu w/o BPF_F_TEST_RUN_ON_CPU > + * should fail with EINVAL > + */ > + opts.flags = 0; > + err = bpf_prog_test_run_opts(prog_fd, &opts); > + CHECK(err != -1 || errno != EINVAL, > + "test_run_opts_fail", > + "should failed with EINVAL\n"); > + } > + } > + } > +cleanup: > + close(comm_fd); > + test_raw_tp_test_run__destroy(skel); > + free(online); > +}
> On Sep 24, 2020, at 6:01 PM, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com> wrote: > > Song Liu wrote: >> This test runs test_run for raw_tracepoint program. The test covers ctx >> input, retval output, and running on correct cpu. >> >> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com> >> --- > > [...] > >> +void test_raw_tp_test_run(void) >> +{ >> + struct bpf_prog_test_run_attr test_attr = {}; >> + int comm_fd = -1, err, nr_online, i, prog_fd; >> + __u64 args[2] = {0x1234ULL, 0x5678ULL}; >> + int expected_retval = 0x1234 + 0x5678; >> + struct test_raw_tp_test_run *skel; >> + char buf[] = "new_name"; >> + bool *online = NULL; >> + >> + err = parse_cpu_mask_file("/sys/devices/system/cpu/online", &online, >> + &nr_online); >> + if (CHECK(err, "parse_cpu_mask_file", "err %d\n", err)) >> + return; >> + >> + skel = test_raw_tp_test_run__open_and_load(); >> + if (CHECK(!skel, "skel_open", "failed to open skeleton\n")) >> + goto cleanup; >> + >> + err = test_raw_tp_test_run__attach(skel); >> + if (CHECK(err, "skel_attach", "skeleton attach failed: %d\n", err)) >> + goto cleanup; >> + >> + comm_fd = open("/proc/self/comm", O_WRONLY|O_TRUNC); >> + if (CHECK(comm_fd < 0, "open /proc/self/comm", "err %d\n", errno)) >> + goto cleanup; >> + >> + err = write(comm_fd, buf, sizeof(buf)); >> + CHECK(err < 0, "task rename", "err %d", errno); >> + >> + CHECK(skel->bss->count == 0, "check_count", "didn't increase\n"); >> + CHECK(skel->data->on_cpu != 0xffffffff, "check_on_cpu", "got wrong value\n"); >> + >> + prog_fd = bpf_program__fd(skel->progs.rename); >> + test_attr.prog_fd = prog_fd; >> + test_attr.ctx_in = args; >> + test_attr.ctx_size_in = sizeof(__u64); >> + >> + err = bpf_prog_test_run_xattr(&test_attr); >> + CHECK(err == 0, "test_run", "should fail for too small ctx\n"); >> + >> + test_attr.ctx_size_in = sizeof(args); >> + err = bpf_prog_test_run_xattr(&test_attr); >> + CHECK(err < 0, "test_run", "err %d\n", errno); >> + CHECK(test_attr.retval != expected_retval, "check_retval", >> + "expect 0x%x, got 0x%x\n", expected_retval, test_attr.retval); >> + >> + for (i = 0; i < nr_online; i++) { >> + if (online[i]) { >> + DECLARE_LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_test_run_opts, opts, >> + .ctx_in = args, >> + .ctx_size_in = sizeof(args), >> + .flags = BPF_F_TEST_RUN_ON_CPU, >> + .retval = 0, >> + .cpu = i, >> + ); >> + >> + err = bpf_prog_test_run_opts(prog_fd, &opts); >> + CHECK(err < 0, "test_run_opts", "err %d\n", errno); >> + CHECK(skel->data->on_cpu != i, "check_on_cpu", >> + "expect %d got %d\n", i, skel->data->on_cpu); >> + CHECK(opts.retval != expected_retval, >> + "check_retval", "expect 0x%x, got 0x%x\n", >> + expected_retval, opts.retval); >> + >> + if (i == 0) { >> + /* invalid cpu ID should fail with ENXIO */ >> + opts.cpu = 0xffffffff; >> + err = bpf_prog_test_run_opts(prog_fd, &opts); >> + CHECK(err != -1 || errno != ENXIO, >> + "test_run_opts_fail", >> + "should failed with ENXIO\n"); >> + } else { > > One more request... > > How about pull this if/else branch out of the for loop here? It feels a bit > clumsy as-is imo. Also is it worthwhile to bang on the else branch for evey > cpu I would think testing for any non-zero value should be sufficient. I thought about both these two directions. The biggest benefit of current version is that we can reuse the DECLARE_LIBBPF_OPTS() in this loop. Moving it to the beginning of the function bothers me a little bit.. Thanks, Song
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 4:03 PM Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com> wrote: > > This test runs test_run for raw_tracepoint program. The test covers ctx > input, retval output, and running on correct cpu. > > Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com> > --- Few suggestions below, but overall looks good to me: Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com> > .../bpf/prog_tests/raw_tp_test_run.c | 98 +++++++++++++++++++ > .../bpf/progs/test_raw_tp_test_run.c | 24 +++++ > 2 files changed, 122 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/raw_tp_test_run.c > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_raw_tp_test_run.c > [...] > + > + err = bpf_prog_test_run_xattr(&test_attr); > + CHECK(err == 0, "test_run", "should fail for too small ctx\n"); > + > + test_attr.ctx_size_in = sizeof(args); > + err = bpf_prog_test_run_xattr(&test_attr); > + CHECK(err < 0, "test_run", "err %d\n", errno); > + CHECK(test_attr.retval != expected_retval, "check_retval", > + "expect 0x%x, got 0x%x\n", expected_retval, test_attr.retval); > + > + for (i = 0; i < nr_online; i++) { > + if (online[i]) { if (!online[i]) continue; That will reduce nestedness by one level > + DECLARE_LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_test_run_opts, opts, > + .ctx_in = args, > + .ctx_size_in = sizeof(args), > + .flags = BPF_F_TEST_RUN_ON_CPU, > + .retval = 0, > + .cpu = i, > + ); this declares variable, so should be at the top of the lexical scope > + > + err = bpf_prog_test_run_opts(prog_fd, &opts); > + CHECK(err < 0, "test_run_opts", "err %d\n", errno); > + CHECK(skel->data->on_cpu != i, "check_on_cpu", > + "expect %d got %d\n", i, skel->data->on_cpu); > + CHECK(opts.retval != expected_retval, > + "check_retval", "expect 0x%x, got 0x%x\n", > + expected_retval, opts.retval); > + > + if (i == 0) { I agree that this looks a bit obscure. You can still re-use DECLARE_LIBBPF_OPTS, just move it outside the loop. And then you can just modify it in place to adjust to a particular case. And in log output, we'll see 30+ similar success messages for the else branch, which is indeed unnecessary. > + /* invalid cpu ID should fail with ENXIO */ > + opts.cpu = 0xffffffff; > + err = bpf_prog_test_run_opts(prog_fd, &opts); > + CHECK(err != -1 || errno != ENXIO, > + "test_run_opts_fail", > + "should failed with ENXIO\n"); > + } else { > + /* non-zero cpu w/o BPF_F_TEST_RUN_ON_CPU > + * should fail with EINVAL > + */ > + opts.flags = 0; > + err = bpf_prog_test_run_opts(prog_fd, &opts); > + CHECK(err != -1 || errno != EINVAL, > + "test_run_opts_fail", > + "should failed with EINVAL\n"); > + } > + } > + } [...]
> On Sep 25, 2020, at 10:31 AM, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 4:03 PM Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com> wrote: >> >> This test runs test_run for raw_tracepoint program. The test covers ctx >> input, retval output, and running on correct cpu. >> >> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com> >> --- > > Few suggestions below, but overall looks good to me: > > Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com> > >> .../bpf/prog_tests/raw_tp_test_run.c | 98 +++++++++++++++++++ >> .../bpf/progs/test_raw_tp_test_run.c | 24 +++++ >> 2 files changed, 122 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/raw_tp_test_run.c >> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_raw_tp_test_run.c >> > > [...] > >> + >> + err = bpf_prog_test_run_xattr(&test_attr); >> + CHECK(err == 0, "test_run", "should fail for too small ctx\n"); >> + >> + test_attr.ctx_size_in = sizeof(args); >> + err = bpf_prog_test_run_xattr(&test_attr); >> + CHECK(err < 0, "test_run", "err %d\n", errno); >> + CHECK(test_attr.retval != expected_retval, "check_retval", >> + "expect 0x%x, got 0x%x\n", expected_retval, test_attr.retval); >> + >> + for (i = 0; i < nr_online; i++) { >> + if (online[i]) { > > if (!online[i]) > continue; > > That will reduce nestedness by one level > >> + DECLARE_LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_test_run_opts, opts, >> + .ctx_in = args, >> + .ctx_size_in = sizeof(args), >> + .flags = BPF_F_TEST_RUN_ON_CPU, >> + .retval = 0, >> + .cpu = i, >> + ); > > this declares variable, so should be at the top of the lexical scope > > >> + >> + err = bpf_prog_test_run_opts(prog_fd, &opts); >> + CHECK(err < 0, "test_run_opts", "err %d\n", errno); >> + CHECK(skel->data->on_cpu != i, "check_on_cpu", >> + "expect %d got %d\n", i, skel->data->on_cpu); >> + CHECK(opts.retval != expected_retval, >> + "check_retval", "expect 0x%x, got 0x%x\n", >> + expected_retval, opts.retval); >> + >> + if (i == 0) { > > I agree that this looks a bit obscure. You can still re-use > DECLARE_LIBBPF_OPTS, just move it outside the loop. And then you can > just modify it in place to adjust to a particular case. And in log > output, we'll see 30+ similar success messages for the else branch, > which is indeed unnecessary. OK.. 2:1, I will change this in v6. Thanks, Song
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/raw_tp_test_run.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/raw_tp_test_run.c new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000..5b07259781610 --- /dev/null +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/raw_tp_test_run.c @@ -0,0 +1,98 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only +/* Copyright (c) 2019 Facebook */ +#include <test_progs.h> +#include <linux/bpf.h> +#include "bpf/libbpf_internal.h" +#include "test_raw_tp_test_run.skel.h" + +static int duration; + +void test_raw_tp_test_run(void) +{ + struct bpf_prog_test_run_attr test_attr = {}; + int comm_fd = -1, err, nr_online, i, prog_fd; + __u64 args[2] = {0x1234ULL, 0x5678ULL}; + int expected_retval = 0x1234 + 0x5678; + struct test_raw_tp_test_run *skel; + char buf[] = "new_name"; + bool *online = NULL; + + err = parse_cpu_mask_file("/sys/devices/system/cpu/online", &online, + &nr_online); + if (CHECK(err, "parse_cpu_mask_file", "err %d\n", err)) + return; + + skel = test_raw_tp_test_run__open_and_load(); + if (CHECK(!skel, "skel_open", "failed to open skeleton\n")) + goto cleanup; + + err = test_raw_tp_test_run__attach(skel); + if (CHECK(err, "skel_attach", "skeleton attach failed: %d\n", err)) + goto cleanup; + + comm_fd = open("/proc/self/comm", O_WRONLY|O_TRUNC); + if (CHECK(comm_fd < 0, "open /proc/self/comm", "err %d\n", errno)) + goto cleanup; + + err = write(comm_fd, buf, sizeof(buf)); + CHECK(err < 0, "task rename", "err %d", errno); + + CHECK(skel->bss->count == 0, "check_count", "didn't increase\n"); + CHECK(skel->data->on_cpu != 0xffffffff, "check_on_cpu", "got wrong value\n"); + + prog_fd = bpf_program__fd(skel->progs.rename); + test_attr.prog_fd = prog_fd; + test_attr.ctx_in = args; + test_attr.ctx_size_in = sizeof(__u64); + + err = bpf_prog_test_run_xattr(&test_attr); + CHECK(err == 0, "test_run", "should fail for too small ctx\n"); + + test_attr.ctx_size_in = sizeof(args); + err = bpf_prog_test_run_xattr(&test_attr); + CHECK(err < 0, "test_run", "err %d\n", errno); + CHECK(test_attr.retval != expected_retval, "check_retval", + "expect 0x%x, got 0x%x\n", expected_retval, test_attr.retval); + + for (i = 0; i < nr_online; i++) { + if (online[i]) { + DECLARE_LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_test_run_opts, opts, + .ctx_in = args, + .ctx_size_in = sizeof(args), + .flags = BPF_F_TEST_RUN_ON_CPU, + .retval = 0, + .cpu = i, + ); + + err = bpf_prog_test_run_opts(prog_fd, &opts); + CHECK(err < 0, "test_run_opts", "err %d\n", errno); + CHECK(skel->data->on_cpu != i, "check_on_cpu", + "expect %d got %d\n", i, skel->data->on_cpu); + CHECK(opts.retval != expected_retval, + "check_retval", "expect 0x%x, got 0x%x\n", + expected_retval, opts.retval); + + if (i == 0) { + /* invalid cpu ID should fail with ENXIO */ + opts.cpu = 0xffffffff; + err = bpf_prog_test_run_opts(prog_fd, &opts); + CHECK(err != -1 || errno != ENXIO, + "test_run_opts_fail", + "should failed with ENXIO\n"); + } else { + /* non-zero cpu w/o BPF_F_TEST_RUN_ON_CPU + * should fail with EINVAL + */ + opts.flags = 0; + err = bpf_prog_test_run_opts(prog_fd, &opts); + CHECK(err != -1 || errno != EINVAL, + "test_run_opts_fail", + "should failed with EINVAL\n"); + } + } + } +cleanup: + close(comm_fd); + test_raw_tp_test_run__destroy(skel); + free(online); +} diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_raw_tp_test_run.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_raw_tp_test_run.c new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000..1521853597d70 --- /dev/null +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_raw_tp_test_run.c @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 +/* Copyright (c) 2020 Facebook */ + +#include "vmlinux.h" +#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h> +#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h> + +__u32 count = 0; +__u32 on_cpu = 0xffffffff; + +SEC("raw_tp/task_rename") +int BPF_PROG(rename, struct task_struct *task, char *comm) +{ + + count++; + if ((__u64) task == 0x1234ULL && (__u64) comm == 0x5678ULL) { + on_cpu = bpf_get_smp_processor_id(); + return (int)task + (int)comm; + } + + return 0; +} + +char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
This test runs test_run for raw_tracepoint program. The test covers ctx input, retval output, and running on correct cpu. Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com> --- .../bpf/prog_tests/raw_tp_test_run.c | 98 +++++++++++++++++++ .../bpf/progs/test_raw_tp_test_run.c | 24 +++++ 2 files changed, 122 insertions(+) create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/raw_tp_test_run.c create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_raw_tp_test_run.c