On Wed, 2024-02-28 at 12:15 -0600, David Vernet wrote:
[...]
> > +static libbpf_print_fn_t old_print_cb;
> > +static bool msg_found;
> > +
> > +static int print_cb(enum libbpf_print_level level, const char *fmt, va_list args)
> > +{
> > + old_print_cb(level, fmt, args);
> > + if (level == LIBBPF_WARN && strncmp(fmt, EXPECTED_MSG, strlen(EXPECTED_MSG)) == 0)
> > + msg_found = true;
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
>
> Not necessary at all for this patch set / just an observation, but it would be
> nice to have this be something offered by the core prog_tests framework
> (meaning, the ability to assert libbpf output for a testcase).
This might be useful, I will add a utility function for it (probably two).
[...]
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bad_struct_ops.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bad_struct_ops.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..9c103afbfdb1
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bad_struct_ops.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > +
> > +#include <vmlinux.h>
> > +#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
> > +#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
> > +#include "../bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h"
> > +
> > +char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
> > +
> > +SEC("struct_ops/test_1")
> > +int BPF_PROG(test_1) { return 0; }
> > +
> > +SEC(".struct_ops.link")
> > +struct bpf_testmod_ops testmod_1 = { .test_1 = (void *)test_1 };
>
> Just to make be 100% sure that we're isolating the issue under test, should we
> also add a .test_2 prog and add it to the struct bpf_testmod_ops map?
You are concerned that error might be confused with libbpf insisting
that '.test_2' should be present, right?
libbpf allows NULL members but I can add '.test_2' here, no problem.
[...]
