On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 9:43 AM Song Liu <song@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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?
hm.. they are used just one check above, still needed
>
> > + 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?
technically yes, but when kind mismatches, figuring that out from raw
info field is quite painful, so having a better, more targeted check
is still good.
>
> IIUC, test_type and expect_type may have different name_off now. Shall
> we check ->size matches?
yep, sure, I'll add
>
>
> > err = -1;
> > goto done;
> > }
> > --
> > 2.24.1
> >
