On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 9:55 PM Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 9/20/21 7:43 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > Convert almost all SEC("xdp_blah") uses to strict SEC("xdp") to comply
> > with strict libbpf 1.0 logic of exact section name match for XDP program
> > types. There is only one exception, which is only tested through
> > iproute2 and defines multiple XDP programs within the same BPF object.
> > Given iproute2 still works in non-strict libbpf mode and it doesn't have
> > means to specify XDP programs by its name (not section name/title),
> > leave that single file alone for now until iproute2 gains lookup by
> > function/program name.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
>
> Aside from a checkpatch nit which you didn't cause, LGTM. Some general
> comments follow as well, but aren't directly related to the patch.
>
> Acked-by: Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@xxxxxx>
>
> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_map_in_map.c | 2 +-
> > .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_tcp_check_syncookie_kern.c | 2 +-
> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_xdp.c | 2 +-
> > .../testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_xdp_adjust_tail_grow.c | 2 +-
> > .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_xdp_adjust_tail_shrink.c | 4 +---
> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_xdp_devmap_helpers.c | 2 +-
> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_xdp_link.c | 2 +-
> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_xdp_loop.c | 2 +-
> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_xdp_noinline.c | 4 ++--
> > .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_xdp_with_cpumap_helpers.c | 4 ++--
> > .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_xdp_with_devmap_helpers.c | 4 ++--
> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/xdp_dummy.c | 2 +-
> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/xdp_redirect_multi_kern.c | 4 ++--
> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/xdping_kern.c | 4 ++--
> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_tcp_check_syncookie.sh | 2 +-
> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_xdp_redirect.sh | 4 ++--
> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_xdp_redirect_multi.sh | 2 +-
> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_xdp_veth.sh | 4 ++--
> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xdping.c | 6 +++---
>
> Doesn't look like the test_...sh's here are run by the CI. Confirmed they
> (as well as test_xdping.sh) all passed for me. My test VM isn't doing anything
> special networking-wise, so maybe it's not too difficult to add these to CI.
Thanks for confirming. Yes, they are not run in CI, we only run
test_progs, test_verifier and test_maps. Instead of adding all those
small scripts to be run by CI, we are encouraging everyone to converge
on test_progs, because that's where we invest efforts to make it a
universal test runner for BPF needs. So I'd say let's convert them to
test_progs framework instead.
>
> > 19 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_map_in_map.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_map_in_map.c
> > index 1cfeb940cf9f..5f0e0bfc151e 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_map_in_map.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_map_in_map.c
> > @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ struct {
[...]
> > void *data_end = (void *)(long)xdp->data_end;
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_xdp_adjust_tail_shrink.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_xdp_adjust_tail_shrink.c
> > index 22065a9cfb25..b7448253d135 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_xdp_adjust_tail_shrink.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_xdp_adjust_tail_shrink.c
> > @@ -9,9 +9,7 @@
> > #include <linux/if_ether.h>
> > #include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
> >
> > -int _version SEC("version") = 1;
> > -
>
> Didn't realize this was meant to specify kernel version for compat, and that
> it no longer does anything anyways. Maybe this should be removed from all
> selftests + examples to make this more obvious?
Yes, it should, but perhaps in a separate clean up series. Except I'd
leave it for BPF static linker testing, of course.
>
> > -SEC("xdp_adjust_tail_shrink")
> > +SEC("xdp")
> > int _xdp_adjust_tail_shrink(struct xdp_md *xdp)
> > {
> > void *data_end = (void *)(long)xdp->data_end;
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_xdp_devmap_helpers.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_xdp_devmap_helpers.c
> > index b360ba2bd441..807bf895f42c 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_xdp_devmap_helpers.c
Note, it's generally a good idea to trim irrelevant parts in your
reply making it easier to see one's replies among the wall of text,
especially outside of gmail UI.
[...]
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xdping.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xdping.c
> > index 842d9155d36c..f9798ead20a9 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xdping.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xdping.c
> > @@ -178,9 +178,9 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
> > return 1;
> > }
> >
> > - main_prog = bpf_object__find_program_by_title(obj,
> > - server ? "xdpserver" :
> > - "xdpclient");
> > + main_prog = bpf_object__find_program_by_name(obj,
> > + server ? "xdping_server" :
> > + "xdping_client");
>
> checkpatch doesn't like the text alignment here, not that you changed it
yeah, me neither, but not worth re-spin just for this :)
>
> > if (main_prog)
> > prog_fd = bpf_program__fd(main_prog);
> > if (!main_prog || prog_fd < 0) {
> >
>
>
