| Message ID | 20200217141622.26912-2-mdoucha@suse.cz |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v3,1/3] Redesign TST_RETRY_FUNC() | expand |
On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 10:16 PM Martin Doucha <mdoucha@suse.cz> wrote: > Signed-off-by: Martin Doucha <mdoucha@suse.cz> > --- > > Changes since v1: This patch was split off from the v1 BPF fix. Code > cleanup > to prevent future bugs and make the common code more readable. > > Changes since v2: None. > > testcases/kernel/syscalls/bpf/Makefile | 3 ++ > testcases/kernel/syscalls/bpf/bpf_common.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > testcases/kernel/syscalls/bpf/bpf_common.h | 39 ++----------------- > 3 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 testcases/kernel/syscalls/bpf/bpf_common.c > > diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/bpf/Makefile > b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/bpf/Makefile > index 990c8c83c..2241bce9b 100644 > --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/bpf/Makefile > +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/bpf/Makefile > @@ -5,6 +5,9 @@ top_srcdir ?= ../../../.. > > include $(top_srcdir)/include/mk/testcases.mk > > +FILTER_OUT_MAKE_TARGETS := bpf_common > CFLAGS += -D_GNU_SOURCE > > include $(top_srcdir)/include/mk/generic_leaf_target.mk > + > +$(MAKE_TARGETS): %: %.o bpf_common.o > May I ask why we need to reserve these *.o binary files in the compiling? # ls bpf_common.c bpf_common.o bpf_map01.c bpf_prog01 bpf_prog01.o bpf_prog02.c bpf_prog03 bpf_prog03.o bpf_common.h bpf_map01 bpf_map01.o bpf_prog01.c bpf_prog02 bpf_prog02.o bpf_prog03.c Makefile Otherwise, the patchset looks good. Acked-by: Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com>
On 2/18/20 9:15 AM, Li Wang wrote: > diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/bpf/Makefile > b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/bpf/Makefile > index 990c8c83c..2241bce9b 100644 > --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/bpf/Makefile > +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/bpf/Makefile > @@ -5,6 +5,9 @@ top_srcdir ?= ../../../.. > > include $(top_srcdir)/include/mk/testcases.mk <http://testcases.mk> > > +FILTER_OUT_MAKE_TARGETS := bpf_common > CFLAGS += -D_GNU_SOURCE > > include $(top_srcdir)/include/mk/generic_leaf_target.mk > <http://generic_leaf_target.mk> > + > +$(MAKE_TARGETS): %: %.o bpf_common.o > > > May I ask why we need to reserve these *.o binary files in the compiling? Sorry, I don't understand the question.
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 4:44 PM Martin Doucha <mdoucha@suse.cz> wrote: > On 2/18/20 9:15 AM, Li Wang wrote: > > diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/bpf/Makefile > > b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/bpf/Makefile > > index 990c8c83c..2241bce9b 100644 > > --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/bpf/Makefile > > +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/bpf/Makefile > > @@ -5,6 +5,9 @@ top_srcdir ?= ../../../.. > > > > include $(top_srcdir)/include/mk/testcases.mk <http://testcases.mk> > > > > +FILTER_OUT_MAKE_TARGETS := bpf_common > > CFLAGS += -D_GNU_SOURCE > > > > include $(top_srcdir)/include/mk/generic_leaf_target.mk > > <http://generic_leaf_target.mk> > > + > > +$(MAKE_TARGETS): %: %.o bpf_common.o > > > > > > May I ask why we need to reserve these *.o binary files in the compiling? > > Sorry, I don't understand the question. > Sorry for the unclear question. I mean can we modify the Makefile as: --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/bpf/Makefile +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/bpf/Makefile @@ -10,4 +10,4 @@ CFLAGS += -D_GNU_SOURCE include $(top_srcdir)/include/mk/generic_leaf_target.mk -$(MAKE_TARGETS): %: %.o bpf_common.o +$(MAKE_TARGETS): %: bpf_common.o
Hi, > Sorry for the unclear question. I mean can we modify the Makefile as: > --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/bpf/Makefile > +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/bpf/Makefile > @@ -10,4 +10,4 @@ CFLAGS += -D_GNU_SOURCE > include $(top_srcdir)/include/mk/generic_leaf_target.mk > -$(MAKE_TARGETS): %: %.o bpf_common.o > +$(MAKE_TARGETS): %: bpf_common.o +1 that removes object files. Kind regards, Petr
Hi, > May I ask why we need to reserve these *.o binary files in the compiling? > # ls > bpf_common.c bpf_common.o bpf_map01.c bpf_prog01 bpf_prog01.o > bpf_prog02.c bpf_prog03 bpf_prog03.o > bpf_common.h bpf_map01 bpf_map01.o bpf_prog01.c bpf_prog02 > bpf_prog02.o bpf_prog03.c Makefile > Otherwise, the patchset looks good. > Acked-by: Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> (+1 for Li change to Makefile). Kind regards, Petr
On 2/18/20 9:49 AM, Li Wang wrote: > Sorry for the unclear question. I mean can we modify the Makefile as: > > --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/bpf/Makefile > +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/bpf/Makefile > @@ -10,4 +10,4 @@ CFLAGS += -D_GNU_SOURCE > > include $(top_srcdir)/include/mk/generic_leaf_target.mk > > -$(MAKE_TARGETS): %: %.o bpf_common.o > +$(MAKE_TARGETS): %: bpf_common.o Ah, OK. I'll fix that.
diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/bpf/Makefile b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/bpf/Makefile index 990c8c83c..2241bce9b 100644 --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/bpf/Makefile +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/bpf/Makefile @@ -5,6 +5,9 @@ top_srcdir ?= ../../../.. include $(top_srcdir)/include/mk/testcases.mk +FILTER_OUT_MAKE_TARGETS := bpf_common CFLAGS += -D_GNU_SOURCE include $(top_srcdir)/include/mk/generic_leaf_target.mk + +$(MAKE_TARGETS): %: %.o bpf_common.o diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/bpf/bpf_common.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/bpf/bpf_common.c new file mode 100644 index 000000000..fce364af8 --- /dev/null +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/bpf/bpf_common.c @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@ +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later */ +/* + * Copyright (c) 2019-2020 Linux Test Project + */ + +#define TST_NO_DEFAULT_MAIN +#include "tst_test.h" +#include "lapi/bpf.h" +#include "bpf_common.h" + +void rlimit_bump_memlock(void) +{ + struct rlimit memlock_r; + + SAFE_GETRLIMIT(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, &memlock_r); + memlock_r.rlim_cur += BPF_MEMLOCK_ADD; + tst_res(TINFO, "Raising RLIMIT_MEMLOCK to %ld", + (long)memlock_r.rlim_cur); + + if (memlock_r.rlim_cur <= memlock_r.rlim_max) { + SAFE_SETRLIMIT(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, &memlock_r); + } else if ((geteuid() == 0)) { + memlock_r.rlim_max += BPF_MEMLOCK_ADD; + SAFE_SETRLIMIT(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, &memlock_r); + } else { + tst_res(TINFO, "Can't raise RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, test may fail " + "due to lack of max locked memory"); + } +} + +int bpf_map_create(union bpf_attr *attr) +{ + TEST(bpf(BPF_MAP_CREATE, attr, sizeof(*attr))); + if (TST_RET == -1) { + if (TST_ERR == EPERM) { + tst_res(TCONF, "Hint: check also /proc/sys/kernel/unprivileged_bpf_disabled"); + tst_brk(TCONF | TTERRNO, + "bpf() requires CAP_SYS_ADMIN on this system"); + } else { + tst_brk(TBROK | TTERRNO, "Failed to create array map"); + } + } + + return TST_RET; +} diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/bpf/bpf_common.h b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/bpf/bpf_common.h index f700bede2..e46a519eb 100644 --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/bpf/bpf_common.h +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/bpf/bpf_common.h @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ /* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later */ /* - * Copyright (c) 2019 Linux Test Project + * Copyright (c) 2019-2020 Linux Test Project */ #ifndef LTP_BPF_COMMON_H @@ -8,40 +8,7 @@ #define BPF_MEMLOCK_ADD (256*1024) -void rlimit_bump_memlock(void) -{ - struct rlimit memlock_r; - - SAFE_GETRLIMIT(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, &memlock_r); - memlock_r.rlim_cur += BPF_MEMLOCK_ADD; - tst_res(TINFO, "Raising RLIMIT_MEMLOCK to %ld", - (long)memlock_r.rlim_cur); - - if (memlock_r.rlim_cur <= memlock_r.rlim_max) { - SAFE_SETRLIMIT(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, &memlock_r); - } else if ((geteuid() == 0)) { - memlock_r.rlim_max += BPF_MEMLOCK_ADD; - SAFE_SETRLIMIT(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, &memlock_r); - } else { - tst_res(TINFO, "Can't raise RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, test may fail " - "due to lack of max locked memory"); - } -} - -int bpf_map_create(union bpf_attr *attr) -{ - TEST(bpf(BPF_MAP_CREATE, attr, sizeof(*attr))); - if (TST_RET == -1) { - if (TST_ERR == EPERM) { - tst_res(TCONF, "Hint: check also /proc/sys/kernel/unprivileged_bpf_disabled"); - tst_brk(TCONF | TTERRNO, - "bpf() requires CAP_SYS_ADMIN on this system"); - } else { - tst_brk(TBROK | TTERRNO, "Failed to create array map"); - } - } - - return TST_RET; -} +void rlimit_bump_memlock(void); +int bpf_map_create(union bpf_attr *attr); #endif
Signed-off-by: Martin Doucha <mdoucha@suse.cz> --- Changes since v1: This patch was split off from the v1 BPF fix. Code cleanup to prevent future bugs and make the common code more readable. Changes since v2: None. testcases/kernel/syscalls/bpf/Makefile | 3 ++ testcases/kernel/syscalls/bpf/bpf_common.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++ testcases/kernel/syscalls/bpf/bpf_common.h | 39 ++----------------- 3 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-) create mode 100644 testcases/kernel/syscalls/bpf/bpf_common.c