On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 6:12 AM KP Singh <kpsingh@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From: KP Singh <kpsingh@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> The current fexit and fentry tests rely on a different program to
> exercise the functions they attach to. Instead of doing this, implement
> the test operations for tracing which will also be used for
> BPF_OVERRIDE_RETURN in a subsequent patch.
typo: BPF_OVERRIDE_RETURN -> BPF_MODIFY_RETURN?
>
> Also, clean up the fexit test to use the generated skeleton.
>
> Signed-off-by: KP Singh <kpsingh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
Nice clean up for fexit_test, thank you!
> include/linux/bpf.h | 10 +++
> kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 1 +
> net/bpf/test_run.c | 38 +++++++---
> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fentry_fexit.c | 12 +---
> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fentry_test.c | 14 ++--
> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fexit_test.c | 69 ++++++-------------
> 6 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 76 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
> index 3cfdc216a2f4..c00919025532 100644
> --- a/include/linux/bpf.h
> +++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
> @@ -1156,6 +1156,9 @@ int bpf_prog_test_run_xdp(struct bpf_prog *prog, const union bpf_attr *kattr,
> union bpf_attr __user *uattr);
> int bpf_prog_test_run_skb(struct bpf_prog *prog, const union bpf_attr *kattr,
> union bpf_attr __user *uattr);
> +int bpf_prog_test_run_tracing(struct bpf_prog *prog,
> + const union bpf_attr *kattr,
> + union bpf_attr __user *uattr);
> int bpf_prog_test_run_flow_dissector(struct bpf_prog *prog,
> const union bpf_attr *kattr,
> union bpf_attr __user *uattr);
> @@ -1313,6 +1316,13 @@ static inline int bpf_prog_test_run_skb(struct bpf_prog *prog,
> return -ENOTSUPP;
> }
>
> +static inline int bpf_prog_test_run_tracing(struct bpf_prog *prog,
> + const union bpf_attr *kattr,
> + union bpf_attr __user *uattr)
> +{
> + return -ENOTSUPP;
> +}
> +
> static inline int bpf_prog_test_run_flow_dissector(struct bpf_prog *prog,
> const union bpf_attr *kattr,
> union bpf_attr __user *uattr)
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> index 07764c761073..363e0a2c75cf 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> @@ -1266,6 +1266,7 @@ const struct bpf_verifier_ops tracing_verifier_ops = {
> };
>
> const struct bpf_prog_ops tracing_prog_ops = {
> + .test_run = bpf_prog_test_run_tracing,
> };
>
> static bool raw_tp_writable_prog_is_valid_access(int off, int size,
> diff --git a/net/bpf/test_run.c b/net/bpf/test_run.c
> index 562443f94133..fb54b45285b4 100644
> --- a/net/bpf/test_run.c
> +++ b/net/bpf/test_run.c
> @@ -160,18 +160,38 @@ static void *bpf_test_init(const union bpf_attr *kattr, u32 size,
> kfree(data);
> return ERR_PTR(-EFAULT);
> }
> - if (bpf_fentry_test1(1) != 2 ||
> - bpf_fentry_test2(2, 3) != 5 ||
> - bpf_fentry_test3(4, 5, 6) != 15 ||
> - bpf_fentry_test4((void *)7, 8, 9, 10) != 34 ||
> - bpf_fentry_test5(11, (void *)12, 13, 14, 15) != 65 ||
> - bpf_fentry_test6(16, (void *)17, 18, 19, (void *)20, 21) != 111) {
> - kfree(data);
> - return ERR_PTR(-EFAULT);
> - }
> +
> return data;
> }
>
> +int bpf_prog_test_run_tracing(struct bpf_prog *prog,
> + const union bpf_attr *kattr,
> + union bpf_attr __user *uattr)
> +{
> + int err = -EFAULT;
> +
> + switch (prog->expected_attach_type) {
> + case BPF_TRACE_FENTRY:
> + case BPF_TRACE_FEXIT:
> + if (bpf_fentry_test1(1) != 2 ||
> + bpf_fentry_test2(2, 3) != 5 ||
> + bpf_fentry_test3(4, 5, 6) != 15 ||
> + bpf_fentry_test4((void *)7, 8, 9, 10) != 34 ||
> + bpf_fentry_test5(11, (void *)12, 13, 14, 15) != 65 ||
> + bpf_fentry_test6(16, (void *)17, 18, 19, (void *)20, 21) != 111)
> + goto out;
> + break;
> + default:
> + goto out;
> + }
No trace_bpf_test_finish here?
> +
> + return 0;
> +
> +out:
> + trace_bpf_test_finish(&err);
> + return err;
> +}
> +
> static void *bpf_ctx_init(const union bpf_attr *kattr, u32 max_size)
> {
> void __user *data_in = u64_to_user_ptr(kattr->test.ctx_in);
[...]
