On 10/24/2024 9:48 AM, Byeonguk Jeong wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 05:59:53PM +0800, Hou Tao wrote: >> Alexei suggested adding a bpf self-test for the patch. I think you >> could reference the code in lpm_trie_map_batch_ops.c [1] or similar and >> add a new file that uses bpf_map_get_next_key to demonstrate the >> out-of-bound problem. The test can be run by ./test_maps. There is some >> document for the procedure in [2]. >> >> [1]: tools/testing/selftests/bpf/map_tests/lpm_trie_map_batch_ops.c >> [2]: >> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst > Okay, I will add a new test. Thanks for the detailed guideline. > >> Which procedure will return -ENOENT ? I think the element with >> prefixlen=0 could still be found through the key with prefixlen = 0. > I mean, BPF_MAP_GET_NEXT_KEY with .prefixlen = 0 would give us -ENOENT, > as it follows postorder. BPF_MAP_LOOKUP_ELEM still find the element > with prefixlen 0 through the key with prefixlen 0 as you said. I see. But considering the element with .prefixlen = 0 is the last one in the map, returning -ENOENT is expected. > .
