Hi Song,
On 1/18/2024 1:20 AM, Song Liu wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 3:10 AM Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> [...]
>> @@ -1622,6 +1624,16 @@ static void do_test_single(struct bpf_test *test, bool unpriv,
>> alignment_prevented_execution = 0;
>>
>> if (expected_ret == ACCEPT || expected_ret == VERBOSE_ACCEPT) {
>> + if (fd_prog < 0 && saved_errno == EINVAL && jit_disabled) {
>> + for (i = 0; i < prog_len; i++, prog++) {
>> + if (!insn_is_pseudo_func(prog))
>> + continue;
>> + printf("SKIP (callbacks are not allowed in non-JITed programs)\n");
>> + skips++;
>> + goto close_fds;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
> I would put this chunk above "alignment_prevented_execution = 0;".
>
> @@ -1619,6 +1621,16 @@ static void do_test_single(struct bpf_test
> *test, bool unpriv,
> goto close_fds;
> }
>
> + if (fd_prog < 0 && saved_errno == EINVAL && jit_disabled) {
> + for (i = 0; i < prog_len; i++, prog++) {
> + if (!insn_is_pseudo_func(prog))
> + continue;
> + printf("SKIP (callbacks are not allowed in
> non-JITed programs)\n");
> + skips++;
> + goto close_fds;
> + }
> + }
> +
> alignment_prevented_execution = 0;
>
> if (expected_ret == ACCEPT || expected_ret == VERBOSE_ACCEPT) {
>
> Other than this,
The check was placed before the checking of expected_ret in v3. However
I suggested Tiezhu to move it after the checking of expected_ret due to
the following two reasons:
1) when the expected result is REJECT, the return value in about one
third of these test cases is -EINVAL. And I think we should not waste
the cpu to check the pseudo func and exit prematurely, instead we should
let test_verifier check expected_err.
2) As for now all expected_ret of these failed cases are ACCEPT when jit
is disabled, so I think it will be enough for current situation and we
can revise it later if the checking of pseudo func is too later.
So wdyt ?
>
> Acked-by: Song Liu <song@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Thanks,
> Song
>
> .
