On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 1:40 AM Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Remove the requirement of a strictly exact string section contents. This used
> to be true when string deduplication was done through sorting, but with string
> dedup done through hash table, it's no longer true. So relax test harness to
> relax strings checks and, consequently, type checks, which now don't have to
> have exactly the same string offsets.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c | 34 +++++++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c
> index 93162484c2ca..2ccc23b2a36f 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c
> @@ -6652,7 +6652,7 @@ static void do_test_dedup(unsigned int test_num)
> const void *test_btf_data, *expect_btf_data;
> const char *ret_test_next_str, *ret_expect_next_str;
> const char *test_strs, *expect_strs;
> - const char *test_str_cur, *test_str_end;
> + const char *test_str_cur;
> const char *expect_str_cur, *expect_str_end;
> unsigned int raw_btf_size;
> void *raw_btf;
> @@ -6719,12 +6719,18 @@ static void do_test_dedup(unsigned int test_num)
> goto done;
> }
>
> - test_str_cur = test_strs;
> - test_str_end = test_strs + test_hdr->str_len;
> expect_str_cur = expect_strs;
> expect_str_end = expect_strs + expect_hdr->str_len;
> - while (test_str_cur < test_str_end && expect_str_cur < expect_str_end) {
> + while (expect_str_cur < expect_str_end) {
> size_t test_len, expect_len;
> + int off;
> +
> + off = btf__find_str(test_btf, expect_str_cur);
> + if (CHECK(off < 0, "exp str '%s' not found: %d\n", expect_str_cur, off)) {
> + err = -1;
> + goto done;
> + }
> + test_str_cur = btf__str_by_offset(test_btf, off);
>
> test_len = strlen(test_str_cur);
> expect_len = strlen(expect_str_cur);
> @@ -6741,15 +6747,8 @@ static void do_test_dedup(unsigned int test_num)
> err = -1;
> goto done;
> }
> - test_str_cur += test_len + 1;
> expect_str_cur += expect_len + 1;
> }
> - if (CHECK(test_str_cur != test_str_end,
> - "test_str_cur:%p != test_str_end:%p",
> - test_str_cur, test_str_end)) {
> - err = -1;
> - goto done;
> - }
>
> test_nr_types = btf__get_nr_types(test_btf);
> expect_nr_types = btf__get_nr_types(expect_btf);
> @@ -6775,10 +6774,15 @@ static void do_test_dedup(unsigned int test_num)
> err = -1;
> goto done;
> }
> - if (CHECK(memcmp((void *)test_type,
> - (void *)expect_type,
> - test_size),
> - "type #%d: contents differ", i)) {
I guess test_size and expect_size are not needed anymore?
> + if (CHECK(btf_kind(test_type) != btf_kind(expect_type),
> + "type %d kind: exp %d != got %u\n",
> + i, btf_kind(expect_type), btf_kind(test_type))) {
> + err = -1;
> + goto done;
> + }
> + if (CHECK(test_type->info != expect_type->info,
> + "type %d info: exp %d != got %u\n",
> + i, expect_type->info, test_type->info)) {
btf_kind() returns part of ->info, so we only need the second check, no?
IIUC, test_type and expect_type may have different name_off now. Shall
we check ->size matches?
> err = -1;
> goto done;
> }
> --
> 2.24.1
>
