On 5/11/21 3:45 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 8:48 PM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxx>
Improve selftest to check that btf_load is working from bpf program.
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/syscall.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 48 insertions(+)
[...]
SEC("syscall")
int bpf_prog(struct args *ctx)
{
@@ -33,6 +73,8 @@ int bpf_prog(struct args *ctx)
.map_type = BPF_MAP_TYPE_HASH,
.key_size = 8,
.value_size = 8,
+ .btf_key_type_id = 1,
+ .btf_value_type_id = 2,
};
static union bpf_attr map_update_attr = { .map_fd = 1, };
static __u64 key = 12;
@@ -43,7 +85,13 @@ int bpf_prog(struct args *ctx)
};
int ret;
+ ret = btf_load();
Maybe let's move patch #11 (bpf_sys_close() helper) in front of these
selftests and call bpf_sys_close() appropriately on error and (if
success) after map is created?
Interesting idea. I took a stab at it, but it's not unit-test like.
That bpf_sys_close is going to be used assuming it's working.
I'd rather add explicit test for bpf_sys_close eventually
instead of mixing the two.
Since your concern is fd leak I've added btf_fd to context instead
and added explicit close() in user space.
