Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/5] selftests/bpf: Add test for __nullable suffix in tp_btf

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

 



On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 12:56 AM Philo Lu <lulie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Add a tracepoint with __nullable suffix in bpf_testmod, and add a
> failure load case:
>
> $./test_progs -t "module_attach"
>  #173/1   module_attach/handle_tp_btf_nullable_bare:OK
>  #173     module_attach:OK
>  Summary: 1/1 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
>
> Signed-off-by: Philo Lu <lulie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  .../bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod-events.h         |  6 ++++++
>  .../selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c      |  2 ++
>  .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/module_attach.c     | 14 +++++++++++++-
>  .../bpf/progs/test_module_attach_fail.c          | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>  4 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_module_attach_fail.c
>

[...]

> +
> +static void module_attach_fail(void)
> +{
> +       RUN_TESTS(test_module_attach_fail);
> +}
> +
> +void test_module_attach(void)
> +{
> +       module_attach_succ();
> +       module_attach_fail();
> +}

this is not a good idea to combine existing non-RUN_TESTS test with
RUN_TESTS. The latter is a subtest, while the former is a full test.
Keep them separate, just add a new file for
RUN_TESTS(test_module_attach_fail), or add them to existing
RUN_TESTS(), whatever makes most sense.

> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_module_attach_fail.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_module_attach_fail.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000000..0f848d8f2f5e8
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_module_attach_fail.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
> +// 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"
> +#include "bpf_misc.h"
> +
> +SEC("tp_btf/bpf_testmod_test_nullable_bare")
> +__failure __msg("invalid mem access")

would be nice to confirm that register corresponding to nullable_ctx
actually has "_or_null" suffix


> +int BPF_PROG(handle_tp_btf_nullable_bare, struct bpf_testmod_test_read_ctx *nullable_ctx)
> +{
> +       return nullable_ctx->len;
> +}
> +
> +char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
> --
> 2.32.0.3.g01195cf9f
>
>





[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