On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 2:59 AM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 5:04 AM Krzesimir Nowak <krzesimir@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 1:52 AM Andrii Nakryiko
> > <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 3:42 PM Krzesimir Nowak <krzesimir@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Save errno right after bpf_prog_test_run returns, so we later check
> > > > the error code actually set by bpf_prog_test_run, not by some libcap
> > > > function.
> > > >
> > > > Changes since v1:
> > > > - Fix the "Fixes:" tag to mention actual commit that introduced the
> > > > bug
> > > >
> > > > Changes since v2:
> > > > - Move the declaration so it fits the reverse christmas tree style.
> > > >
> > > > Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Fixes: 832c6f2c29ec ("bpf: test make sure to run unpriv test cases in test_verifier")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Krzesimir Nowak <krzesimir@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 4 +++-
> > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> > > > index b8d065623ead..3fe126e0083b 100644
> > > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> > > > @@ -823,16 +823,18 @@ static int do_prog_test_run(int fd_prog, bool unpriv, uint32_t expected_val,
> > > > __u8 tmp[TEST_DATA_LEN << 2];
> > > > __u32 size_tmp = sizeof(tmp);
> > > > uint32_t retval;
> > > > + int saved_errno;
> > > > int err;
> > > >
> > > > if (unpriv)
> > > > set_admin(true);
> > > > err = bpf_prog_test_run(fd_prog, 1, data, size_data,
> > > > tmp, &size_tmp, &retval, NULL);
> > >
> > > Given err is either 0 or -1, how about instead making err useful right
> > > here without extra variable?
> > >
> > > if (bpf_prog_test_run(...))
> > > err = errno;
> >
> > I change it later to bpf_prog_test_run_xattr, which can also return
> > -EINVAL and then errno is not set. But this one probably should not be
>
> This is wrong. bpf_prog_test_run/bpf_prog_test_run_xattr should either
> always return -1 and set errno to actual error (like syscalls do), or
> always use return code with proper error. Give they are pretending to
> be just pure syscall, it's probably better to set errno to EINVAL and
> return -1 on invalid input args?
Yeah, this is inconsistent at best. But seems to be kind of expected?
See tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/prog_run_xattr.c.
>
> > triggered by the test code. So not sure, probably would be better to
> > keep it as is for consistency?
> >
> > >
> > > > + saved_errno = errno;
> > > > if (unpriv)
> > > > set_admin(false);
> > > > if (err) {
> > > > - switch (errno) {
> > > > + switch (saved_errno) {
> > > > case 524/*ENOTSUPP*/:
> > >
> > > ENOTSUPP is defined in include/linux/errno.h, is there any problem
> > > with using this in selftests?
> >
> > I just used whatever there was earlier. Seems like <linux/errno.h> is
> > not copied to tools include directory.
>
> Ok, let's leave it as is, thanks!
>
> >
> > >
> > > > printf("Did not run the program (not supported) ");
> > > > return 0;
> > > > --
> > > > 2.20.1
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Kinvolk GmbH | Adalbertstr.6a, 10999 Berlin | tel: +491755589364
> > Geschäftsführer/Directors: Alban Crequy, Chris Kühl, Iago López Galeiras
> > Registergericht/Court of registration: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg
> > Registernummer/Registration number: HRB 171414 B
> > Ust-ID-Nummer/VAT ID number: DE302207000
--
Kinvolk GmbH | Adalbertstr.6a, 10999 Berlin | tel: +491755589364
Geschäftsführer/Directors: Alban Crequy, Chris Kühl, Iago López Galeiras
Registergericht/Court of registration: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg
Registernummer/Registration number: HRB 171414 B
Ust-ID-Nummer/VAT ID number: DE302207000
