On 7/28/21 10:04 AM, Johan Almbladh wrote:
This patch adds a number of tests for BPF_LSH, BPF_RSH amd BPF_ARSH
ALU64 operations with values that may trigger different JIT code paths.
Mainly testing 32-bit JITs that implement ALU64 operations with two
32-bit CPU registers per operand.
Signed-off-by: Johan Almbladh <johan.almbladh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
lib/test_bpf.c | 544 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 542 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/test_bpf.c b/lib/test_bpf.c
index ef75dbf53ec2..b930fa35b9ef 100644
--- a/lib/test_bpf.c
+++ b/lib/test_bpf.c
@@ -4139,6 +4139,106 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
{ },
{ { 0, 0x80000000 } },
},
+ {
+ "ALU64_LSH_X: Shift < 32, low word",
+ .u.insns_int = {
+ BPF_LD_IMM64(R0, 0x0123456789abcdefLL),
+ BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_MOV, R1, 12),
+ BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_LSH, R0, R1),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ INTERNAL,
+ { },
+ { { 0, 0xbcdef000 } }
In bpf_test struct, the result is defined as __u32
struct {
int data_size;
__u32 result;
} test[MAX_SUBTESTS];
But the above result 0xbcdef000 does not really capture the bpf program
return value, which should be 0x3456789abcdef000.
Can we change "result" type to __u64 so the result truly captures the
program return value?
We have several other similar cases for the rest of this patch.
+ },
+ {
+ "ALU64_LSH_X: Shift < 32, high word",
+ .u.insns_int = {
+ BPF_LD_IMM64(R0, 0x0123456789abcdefLL),
+ BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_MOV, R1, 12),
+ BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_LSH, R0, R1),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_RSH, R0, 32),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ INTERNAL,
+ { },
+ { { 0, 0x3456789a } }
+ },
[...]
