Song Liu wrote:
> This test runs test_run for raw_tracepoint program. The test covers ctx
> input, retval output, and running on correct cpu.
>
> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@xxxxxx>
> ---
[...]
> +void test_raw_tp_test_run(void)
> +{
> + struct bpf_prog_test_run_attr test_attr = {};
> + int comm_fd = -1, err, nr_online, i, prog_fd;
> + __u64 args[2] = {0x1234ULL, 0x5678ULL};
> + int expected_retval = 0x1234 + 0x5678;
> + struct test_raw_tp_test_run *skel;
> + char buf[] = "new_name";
> + bool *online = NULL;
> +
> + err = parse_cpu_mask_file("/sys/devices/system/cpu/online", &online,
> + &nr_online);
> + if (CHECK(err, "parse_cpu_mask_file", "err %d\n", err))
> + return;
> +
> + skel = test_raw_tp_test_run__open_and_load();
> + if (CHECK(!skel, "skel_open", "failed to open skeleton\n"))
> + goto cleanup;
> +
> + err = test_raw_tp_test_run__attach(skel);
> + if (CHECK(err, "skel_attach", "skeleton attach failed: %d\n", err))
> + goto cleanup;
> +
> + comm_fd = open("/proc/self/comm", O_WRONLY|O_TRUNC);
> + if (CHECK(comm_fd < 0, "open /proc/self/comm", "err %d\n", errno))
> + goto cleanup;
> +
> + err = write(comm_fd, buf, sizeof(buf));
> + CHECK(err < 0, "task rename", "err %d", errno);
> +
> + CHECK(skel->bss->count == 0, "check_count", "didn't increase\n");
> + CHECK(skel->data->on_cpu != 0xffffffff, "check_on_cpu", "got wrong value\n");
> +
> + prog_fd = bpf_program__fd(skel->progs.rename);
> + test_attr.prog_fd = prog_fd;
> + test_attr.ctx_in = args;
> + test_attr.ctx_size_in = sizeof(__u64);
> +
> + err = bpf_prog_test_run_xattr(&test_attr);
> + CHECK(err == 0, "test_run", "should fail for too small ctx\n");
> +
> + test_attr.ctx_size_in = sizeof(args);
> + err = bpf_prog_test_run_xattr(&test_attr);
> + CHECK(err < 0, "test_run", "err %d\n", errno);
> + CHECK(test_attr.retval != expected_retval, "check_retval",
> + "expect 0x%x, got 0x%x\n", expected_retval, test_attr.retval);
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < nr_online; i++) {
> + if (online[i]) {
> + DECLARE_LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_test_run_opts, opts,
> + .ctx_in = args,
> + .ctx_size_in = sizeof(args),
> + .flags = BPF_F_TEST_RUN_ON_CPU,
> + .retval = 0,
> + .cpu = i,
> + );
> +
> + err = bpf_prog_test_run_opts(prog_fd, &opts);
> + CHECK(err < 0, "test_run_opts", "err %d\n", errno);
> + CHECK(skel->data->on_cpu != i, "check_on_cpu",
> + "expect %d got %d\n", i, skel->data->on_cpu);
> + CHECK(opts.retval != expected_retval,
> + "check_retval", "expect 0x%x, got 0x%x\n",
> + expected_retval, opts.retval);
> +
> + if (i == 0) {
> + /* invalid cpu ID should fail with ENXIO */
> + opts.cpu = 0xffffffff;
> + err = bpf_prog_test_run_opts(prog_fd, &opts);
> + CHECK(err != -1 || errno != ENXIO,
> + "test_run_opts_fail",
> + "should failed with ENXIO\n");
> + } else {
One more request...
How about pull this if/else branch out of the for loop here? It feels a bit
clumsy as-is imo. Also is it worthwhile to bang on the else branch for evey
cpu I would think testing for any non-zero value should be sufficient.
> + /* non-zero cpu w/o BPF_F_TEST_RUN_ON_CPU
> + * should fail with EINVAL
> + */
> + opts.flags = 0;
> + err = bpf_prog_test_run_opts(prog_fd, &opts);
> + CHECK(err != -1 || errno != EINVAL,
> + "test_run_opts_fail",
> + "should failed with EINVAL\n");
> + }
> + }
> + }
> +cleanup:
> + close(comm_fd);
> + test_raw_tp_test_run__destroy(skel);
> + free(online);
> +}
