John Fastabend wrote:
> Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 7:36 AM John Fastabend <john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > The test itself is not particularly useful but it encodes a common
> > > pattern we have.
> > >
> > > Namely do a sk storage lookup then depending on data here decide if
> > > we need to do more work or alternatively allow packet to PASS. Then
> > > if we need to do more work consult task_struct for more information
> > > about the running task. Finally based on this additional information
> > > drop or pass the data. In this case the suspicious check is not so
> > > realisitic but it encodes the general pattern and uses the helpers
> > > so we test the workflow.
> > >
> > > This is a load test to ensure verifier correctly handles this case.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
[...]
> > > +static void test_skmsg_helpers(enum bpf_map_type map_type)
> > > +{
> > > + struct test_skmsg_load_helpers *skel;
> > > + int err, map, verdict;
> > > +
> > > + skel = test_skmsg_load_helpers__open_and_load();
> > > + if (!skel) {
> > > + FAIL("skeleton open/load failed");
> > > + return;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + verdict = bpf_program__fd(skel->progs.prog_msg_verdict);
> > > + map = bpf_map__fd(skel->maps.sock_map);
> > > +
> > > + err = xbpf_prog_attach(verdict, map, BPF_SK_MSG_VERDICT, 0);
> > > + if (err)
> > > + return;
> > > + xbpf_prog_detach2(verdict, map, BPF_SK_MSG_VERDICT);
> >
> > no cleanup in this test, at all
>
> Guess we need __destroy(skel) here.
>
> As an aside how come if the program closes and refcnt drops the entire
> thing isn't destroyed. I didn't think there was any pinning happening
> in the __open_and_load piece.
I guess these are in progs_test so we can't leave these around for
any following tests to trip over. OK. Same thing for patch 3 fwiw.
