Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add a negative test for stack accounting in jit mode

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 1:54 PM Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The new test is very similar to test_global_func1.c, but
> is modified to fail on jit mode.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  .../bpf/prog_tests/test_global_funcs.c        |  3 ++
>  .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_global_func18.c  | 44 +++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 47 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_global_func18.c
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_global_funcs.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_global_funcs.c
> index a3a41680b38e..dccbf2213135 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_global_funcs.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_global_funcs.c
> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
>  #include "test_global_func15.skel.h"
>  #include "test_global_func16.skel.h"
>  #include "test_global_func17.skel.h"
> +#include "test_global_func18.skel.h"
>  #include "test_global_func_ctx_args.skel.h"
>
>  #include "bpf/libbpf_internal.h"
> @@ -140,6 +141,8 @@ void test_test_global_funcs(void)
>  {
>         if (!env.jit_enabled) {
>                 RUN_TESTS(test_global_func1);
> +       } else {
> +               RUN_TESTS(test_global_func18);
>         }
>
>         RUN_TESTS(test_global_func2);
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_global_func18.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_global_func18.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..d1aa3b2c68fe
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_global_func18.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> +/* Copyright (c) 2024 Meta Platforms, Inc. and affiliates. */
> +#include <stddef.h>
> +#include <linux/bpf.h>
> +#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
> +#include "bpf_misc.h"
> +
> +#define MAX_STACK1 (512 - 3 * 32 + 8)
> +#define MAX_STACK2 (3 * 32)
> +
> +__attribute__ ((noinline))

nit: we have __noinline defined, let's use it as a less verbose option?

> +int f1(struct __sk_buff *skb)
> +{
> +       return skb->len;
> +}
> +
> +int f3(int, struct __sk_buff *skb, int);
> +
> +__attribute__ ((noinline))
> +int f2(int val, struct __sk_buff *skb)
> +{
> +       volatile char buf[MAX_STACK1] = {};
> +
> +       __sink(buf[MAX_STACK1 - 1]);
> +
> +       return f1(skb) + f3(val, skb, 1);
> +}
> +
> +__attribute__ ((noinline))
> +int f3(int val, struct __sk_buff *skb, int var)
> +{
> +       volatile char buf[MAX_STACK2] = {};
> +
> +       __sink(buf[MAX_STACK2 - 1]);
> +
> +       return skb->ifindex * val * var;
> +}
> +
> +SEC("tc")
> +__failure __msg("combined stack size of 3 calls is 528")
> +int global_func18(struct __sk_buff *skb)
> +{
> +       return f1(skb) + f2(2, skb) + f3(3, skb, 4);
> +}
> --
> 2.39.3
>
>





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux