On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 5:00 PM Florent Revest <revest@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> This builds up on the existing socket cookie test which checks whether
> the bpf_get_socket_cookie helpers provide the same value in
> cgroup/connect6 and sockops programs for a socket created by the
> userspace part of the test.
>
> Adding a tracing program to the existing objects requires a different
> attachment strategy and different headers.
>
> Signed-off-by: Florent Revest <revest@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: KP Singh <kpsingh@xxxxxxxxxx>
(one minor note, doesn't really need fixing as a part of this though)
> ---
> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/socket_cookie.c | 24 +++++++----
> .../selftests/bpf/progs/socket_cookie_prog.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++---
> 2 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/socket_cookie.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/socket_cookie.c
> index 53d0c44e7907..e5c5e2ea1deb 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/socket_cookie.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/socket_cookie.c
> @@ -15,8 +15,8 @@ struct socket_cookie {
>
> void test_socket_cookie(void)
> {
> + struct bpf_link *set_link, *update_sockops_link, *update_tracing_link;
> socklen_t addr_len = sizeof(struct sockaddr_in6);
> - struct bpf_link *set_link, *update_link;
> int server_fd, client_fd, cgroup_fd;
> struct socket_cookie_prog *skel;
> __u32 cookie_expected_value;
> @@ -39,15 +39,21 @@ void test_socket_cookie(void)
> PTR_ERR(set_link)))
> goto close_cgroup_fd;
>
> - update_link = bpf_program__attach_cgroup(skel->progs.update_cookie,
> - cgroup_fd);
> - if (CHECK(IS_ERR(update_link), "update-link-cg-attach", "err %ld\n",
> - PTR_ERR(update_link)))
> + update_sockops_link = bpf_program__attach_cgroup(
> + skel->progs.update_cookie_sockops, cgroup_fd);
> + if (CHECK(IS_ERR(update_sockops_link), "update-sockops-link-cg-attach",
> + "err %ld\n", PTR_ERR(update_sockops_link)))
> goto free_set_link;
>
> + update_tracing_link = bpf_program__attach(
> + skel->progs.update_cookie_tracing);
> + if (CHECK(IS_ERR(update_tracing_link), "update-tracing-link-attach",
> + "err %ld\n", PTR_ERR(update_tracing_link)))
> + goto free_update_sockops_link;
> +
> server_fd = start_server(AF_INET6, SOCK_STREAM, "::1", 0, 0);
> if (CHECK(server_fd < 0, "start_server", "errno %d\n", errno))
> - goto free_update_link;
> + goto free_update_tracing_link;
>
> client_fd = connect_to_fd(server_fd, 0);
> if (CHECK(client_fd < 0, "connect_to_fd", "errno %d\n", errno))
> @@ -71,8 +77,10 @@ void test_socket_cookie(void)
> close(client_fd);
> close_server_fd:
> close(server_fd);
> -free_update_link:
> - bpf_link__destroy(update_link);
> +free_update_tracing_link:
> + bpf_link__destroy(update_tracing_link);
I don't think this need to block submission unless there are other
issues but the
bpf_link__destroy can just be called in a single cleanup label because
it handles null or
erroneous inputs:
int bpf_link__destroy(struct bpf_link *link)
{
int err = 0;
if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(link))
return 0;
[...]
