Hi,
On 3/7/2025 12:17 PM, Emil Tsalapatis wrote:
> Add selftests for the bpf_cpumask_fill helper that sets a bpf_cpumask to
> a bit pattern provided by a BPF program.
bpf_cpumask_populate instead of bpf_cpumask_fill ?
>
> Signed-off-by: Emil Tsalapatis (Meta) <emil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/cpumask.c | 3 +
> .../selftests/bpf/progs/cpumask_common.h | 1 +
> .../selftests/bpf/progs/cpumask_failure.c | 38 ++++++
> .../selftests/bpf/progs/cpumask_success.c | 113 ++++++++++++++++++
> 4 files changed, 155 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/cpumask.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/cpumask.c
> index e58a04654238..9b09beba988b 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/cpumask.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/cpumask.c
> @@ -25,6 +25,9 @@ static const char * const cpumask_success_testcases[] = {
> "test_global_mask_nested_deep_rcu",
> "test_global_mask_nested_deep_array_rcu",
> "test_cpumask_weight",
> + "test_populate_reject_small_mask",
> + "test_populate_reject_unaligned",
> + "test_populate",
> };
>
> static void verify_success(const char *prog_name)
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/cpumask_common.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/cpumask_common.h
> index 4ece7873ba60..86085b79f5ca 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/cpumask_common.h
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/cpumask_common.h
> @@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ u32 bpf_cpumask_any_distribute(const struct cpumask *src) __ksym __weak;
> u32 bpf_cpumask_any_and_distribute(const struct cpumask *src1,
> const struct cpumask *src2) __ksym __weak;
> u32 bpf_cpumask_weight(const struct cpumask *cpumask) __ksym __weak;
> +int bpf_cpumask_populate(struct cpumask *cpumask, void *src, size_t src__sz) __ksym __weak;
>
> void bpf_rcu_read_lock(void) __ksym __weak;
> void bpf_rcu_read_unlock(void) __ksym __weak;
SNIP
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/cpumask_success.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/cpumask_success.c
> index 80ee469b0b60..51f3dcf8869f 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/cpumask_success.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/cpumask_success.c
> @@ -770,3 +770,116 @@ int BPF_PROG(test_refcount_null_tracking, struct task_struct *task, u64 clone_fl
> bpf_cpumask_release(mask2);
> return 0;
> }
> +
> +SEC("tp_btf/task_newtask")
> +__success
Why add __success annotation here ? It is unnecessary and will lead to
double run as you had noticed.
