On 21.11.24 03:00, D. Wythe wrote:
On 11/3/24 9:01 PM, Zhu Yanjun wrote:
在 2024/10/24 4:42, D. Wythe 写道:
From: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
This PATCH adds a tiny selftest for bpf_smc_ops, to verify the ability
to attach and write access.
Follow the steps below to run this test.
make -C tools/testing/selftests/bpf
cd tools/testing/selftests/bpf
sudo ./test_progs -t smc
Thanks a lot.
# ./test_progs -t smc
#27/1 bpf_smc/load:OK
#27 bpf_smc:OK
Summary: 1/1 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
The above command is based on several kernel modules. After these
dependent kernel modules are loaded, then can run the above command
successfully.
Zhu Yanjun
Hi, Yanjun
This is indeed a problem, a better way may be to create a separate
testing directory for SMC, and we are trying to do this.
Got it. In the latest patch series, if a test program in sample/bpf can
verify this bpf feature, it is better than a selftest program in the
directory tools/testing/selftests/bpf.
I delved into this selftest tool. It seems that this selftest tool only
makes the basic checks. A test program in sample/bpf can do more.
I mean, it is very nice that a selftest tool can make selftest on smc
bpf. But it is better that a test program in sample/bpf can make some
parameter changes in smc.
These parameter changes are mentioned in the previous commits.
"
As a subsequent enhancement, this patch introduces a new hook for eBPF
programs that allows decisions on whether to use SMC or not at runtime,
including but not limited to local/remote IP address or ports. In
simpler words, this feature allows modifications to syn_smc through
eBPF
programs before the TCP three-way handshake got established.
"
Zhu Yanjun
Best wishes,
D. Wythe
Results shows:
Summary: 1/1 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
Signed-off-by: D. Wythe <alibuda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
.../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_bpf_smc.c | 21 +++++++++++
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_smc.c | 44
++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 65 insertions(+)
create mode 100644
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_bpf_smc.c
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_smc.c
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_bpf_smc.c
b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_bpf_smc.c
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..2299853
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_bpf_smc.c
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+#include <test_progs.h>
+
+#include "bpf_smc.skel.h"
+
+static void load(void)
+{
+ struct bpf_smc *skel;
+
+ skel = bpf_smc__open_and_load();
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "bpf_smc__open_and_load"))
+ return;
+
+ bpf_smc__destroy(skel);
+}
+
+void test_bpf_smc(void)
+{
+ if (test__start_subtest("load"))
+ load();
+}
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_smc.c
b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_smc.c
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..ebff477
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_smc.c
@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+#include "vmlinux.h"
+
+#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
+
+char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
+
+struct smc_bpf_ops_ctx {
+ struct {
+ struct tcp_sock *tp;
+ } set_option;
+ struct {
+ const struct tcp_sock *tp;
+ struct inet_request_sock *ireq;
+ int smc_ok;
+ } set_option_cond;
+};
+
+struct smc_bpf_ops {
+ void (*set_option)(struct smc_bpf_ops_ctx *ctx);
+ void (*set_option_cond)(struct smc_bpf_ops_ctx *ctx);
+};
+
+SEC("struct_ops/bpf_smc_set_tcp_option_cond")
+void BPF_PROG(bpf_smc_set_tcp_option_cond, struct smc_bpf_ops_ctx
*arg)
+{
+ arg->set_option_cond.smc_ok = 1;
+}
+
+SEC("struct_ops/bpf_smc_set_tcp_option")
+void BPF_PROG(bpf_smc_set_tcp_option, struct smc_bpf_ops_ctx *arg)
+{
+ struct tcp_sock *tp = arg->set_option.tp;
+
+ tp->syn_smc = 1;
+}
+
+SEC(".struct_ops.link")
+struct smc_bpf_ops sample_smc_bpf_ops = {
+ .set_option = (void *) bpf_smc_set_tcp_option,
+ .set_option_cond = (void *) bpf_smc_set_tcp_option_cond,
+};
--
Best Regards,
Yanjun.Zhu
