Re: [PATCH bpf-next] selftests/bpf: fix trampoline_count clean up logic

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

 



On 2/20/20 6:06 PM, Song Liu wrote:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 3:07 PM Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@xxxxxx> wrote:

Libbpf's Travis CI tests caught this issue. Ensure bpf_link and bpf_object
clean up is performed correctly.

Fixes: d633d57902a5 ("selftest/bpf: Add test for allowed trampolines count")
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@xxxxxx>
---
  .../bpf/prog_tests/trampoline_count.c         | 25 +++++++++++++------
  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/trampoline_count.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/trampoline_count.c
index 1f6ccdaed1ac..781c8d11604b 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/trampoline_count.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/trampoline_count.c
@@ -55,31 +55,40 @@ void test_trampoline_count(void)
         /* attach 'allowed' 40 trampoline programs */
         for (i = 0; i < MAX_TRAMP_PROGS; i++) {
                 obj = bpf_object__open_file(object, NULL);
-               if (CHECK(IS_ERR(obj), "obj_open_file", "err %ld\n", PTR_ERR(obj)))
+               if (CHECK(IS_ERR(obj), "obj_open_file", "err %ld\n", PTR_ERR(obj))) {
+                       obj = NULL;

I think we don't need obj and link in cleanup? Did I miss anything?


We do set obj below (line 87) after this loop, so need to clean it up as well. As for link, yeah, technically link doesn't have to be set to NULL, but I kind of did it for completeness without thinking too much.



[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