On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 8:53 AM Cupertino Miranda
<cupertino.miranda@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> This patch changes a few tests to make use of regular expressions such
> that the test validation would allow to properly verify the tests when
> compiled with GCC.
>
> signed-off-by: Cupertino Miranda <cupertino.miranda@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: jose.marchesi@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: david.faust@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/dynptr_fail.c | 6 +++---
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/exceptions_assert.c | 8 ++++----
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/rbtree_fail.c | 8 ++++----
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr_fail.c | 4 ++--
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_sock.c | 4 ++--
> 5 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/dynptr_fail.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/dynptr_fail.c
> index 66a60bfb5867..64cc9d936a13 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/dynptr_fail.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/dynptr_fail.c
> @@ -964,7 +964,7 @@ int dynptr_invalidate_slice_reinit(void *ctx)
> * mem_or_null pointers.
> */
> SEC("?raw_tp")
> -__failure __msg("R1 type=scalar expected=percpu_ptr_")
> +__failure __regex("R[0-9]+ type=scalar expected=percpu_ptr_")
> int dynptr_invalidate_slice_or_null(void *ctx)
> {
> struct bpf_dynptr ptr;
> @@ -982,7 +982,7 @@ int dynptr_invalidate_slice_or_null(void *ctx)
>
> /* Destruction of dynptr should also any slices obtained from it */
> SEC("?raw_tp")
> -__failure __msg("R7 invalid mem access 'scalar'")
> +__failure __regex("R[0-9]+ invalid mem access 'scalar'")
> int dynptr_invalidate_slice_failure(void *ctx)
> {
> struct bpf_dynptr ptr1;
> @@ -1069,7 +1069,7 @@ int dynptr_read_into_slot(void *ctx)
>
> /* bpf_dynptr_slice()s are read-only and cannot be written to */
> SEC("?tc")
> -__failure __msg("R0 cannot write into rdonly_mem")
> +__failure __regex("R[0-9]+ cannot write into rdonly_mem")
> int skb_invalid_slice_write(struct __sk_buff *skb)
> {
> struct bpf_dynptr ptr;
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/exceptions_assert.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/exceptions_assert.c
> index 5e0a1ca96d4e..deb67d198caf 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/exceptions_assert.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/exceptions_assert.c
> @@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ check_assert(s64, >=, ge_neg, INT_MIN);
>
> SEC("?tc")
> __log_level(2) __failure
> -__msg(": R0=0 R1=ctx() R2=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000002,smax=smax32=0x7ffffffd,smin32=0x80000002) R10=fp0")
> +__regex(": R0=[^ ]+ R1=ctx() R2=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000002,smax=smax32=0x7ffffffd,smin32=0x80000002) R10=fp0")
curious, what R0 value do we end up with with GCC generated code?
> int check_assert_range_s64(struct __sk_buff *ctx)
> {
> struct bpf_sock *sk = ctx->sk;
> @@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ int check_assert_range_s64(struct __sk_buff *ctx)
>
> SEC("?tc")
> __log_level(2) __failure
> -__msg(": R1=ctx() R2=scalar(smin=umin=smin32=umin32=4096,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=8192,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fff))")
> +__regex("R[0-9]=scalar(smin=umin=smin32=umin32=4096,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=8192,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fff))")
> int check_assert_range_u64(struct __sk_buff *ctx)
> {
> u64 num = ctx->len;
> @@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ int check_assert_range_u64(struct __sk_buff *ctx)
>
> SEC("?tc")
> __log_level(2) __failure
> -__msg(": R0=0 R1=ctx() R2=4096 R10=fp0")
> +__regex(": R0=[^ ]+ R1=ctx() R2=4096 R10=fp0")
> int check_assert_single_range_s64(struct __sk_buff *ctx)
> {
> struct bpf_sock *sk = ctx->sk;
> @@ -114,7 +114,7 @@ int check_assert_single_range_u64(struct __sk_buff *ctx)
>
> SEC("?tc")
> __log_level(2) __failure
> -__msg(": R1=pkt(off=64,r=64) R2=pkt_end() R6=pkt(r=64) R10=fp0")
> +__msg("R1=pkt(off=64,r=64)")
> int check_assert_generic(struct __sk_buff *ctx)
> {
> u8 *data_end = (void *)(long)ctx->data_end;
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/rbtree_fail.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/rbtree_fail.c
> index 3fecf1c6dfe5..8399304eca72 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/rbtree_fail.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/rbtree_fail.c
> @@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ static bool less(struct bpf_rb_node *a, const struct bpf_rb_node *b)
> }
>
> SEC("?tc")
> -__failure __msg("bpf_spin_lock at off=16 must be held for bpf_rb_root")
> +__failure __regex("bpf_spin_lock at off=[0-9]+ must be held for bpf_rb_root")
> long rbtree_api_nolock_add(void *ctx)
> {
> struct node_data *n;
> @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ long rbtree_api_nolock_add(void *ctx)
> }
>
> SEC("?tc")
> -__failure __msg("bpf_spin_lock at off=16 must be held for bpf_rb_root")
> +__failure __regex("bpf_spin_lock at off=[0-9]+ must be held for bpf_rb_root")
> long rbtree_api_nolock_remove(void *ctx)
> {
> struct node_data *n;
> @@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ long rbtree_api_nolock_remove(void *ctx)
> }
>
> SEC("?tc")
> -__failure __msg("bpf_spin_lock at off=16 must be held for bpf_rb_root")
> +__failure __regex("bpf_spin_lock at off=[0-9]+ must be held for bpf_rb_root")
> long rbtree_api_nolock_first(void *ctx)
> {
> bpf_rbtree_first(&groot);
> @@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ long rbtree_api_remove_unadded_node(void *ctx)
> }
>
> SEC("?tc")
> -__failure __msg("Unreleased reference id=3 alloc_insn=10")
> +__failure __regex("Unreleased reference id=3 alloc_insn=[0-9]+")
this test definitely should have been written in BPF assembly if we
care to check alloc_insn... Otherwise we just care that there is
"Unreleased reference" message, we should match on that without
hard-coding id and alloc_insn?
> long rbtree_api_remove_no_drop(void *ctx)
> {
> struct bpf_rb_node *res;
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr_fail.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr_fail.c
> index 1553b9c16aa7..f8d4b7cfcd68 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr_fail.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr_fail.c
> @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ static bool less(struct bpf_rb_node *a, const struct bpf_rb_node *b)
> }
>
> SEC("?tc")
> -__failure __msg("Unreleased reference id=4 alloc_insn=21")
> +__failure __regex("Unreleased reference id=4 alloc_insn=[0-9]+")
same, relying on ID and alloc_insns in tests written in C is super fragile.
> long rbtree_refcounted_node_ref_escapes(void *ctx)
> {
> struct node_acquire *n, *m;
> @@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ long refcount_acquire_maybe_null(void *ctx)
> }
>
> SEC("?tc")
> -__failure __msg("Unreleased reference id=3 alloc_insn=9")
> +__failure __regex("Unreleased reference id=3 alloc_insn=[0-9]+")
> long rbtree_refcounted_node_ref_escapes_owning_input(void *ctx)
ditto
> {
> struct node_acquire *n, *m;
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_sock.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_sock.c
> index ee76b51005ab..450b57933c79 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_sock.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_sock.c
> @@ -799,7 +799,7 @@ l0_%=: r0 = *(u32*)(r0 + %[bpf_xdp_sock_queue_id]); \
>
> SEC("sk_skb")
> __description("bpf_map_lookup_elem(sockmap, &key)")
> -__failure __msg("Unreleased reference id=2 alloc_insn=6")
> +__failure __regex("Unreleased reference id=2 alloc_insn=[0-9]+")
same here and below
> __naked void map_lookup_elem_sockmap_key(void)
> {
> asm volatile (" \
> @@ -819,7 +819,7 @@ __naked void map_lookup_elem_sockmap_key(void)
>
> SEC("sk_skb")
> __description("bpf_map_lookup_elem(sockhash, &key)")
> -__failure __msg("Unreleased reference id=2 alloc_insn=6")
> +__failure __regex("Unreleased reference id=2 alloc_insn=[0-9]+")
> __naked void map_lookup_elem_sockhash_key(void)
> {
> asm volatile (" \
> --
> 2.39.2
>
