On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 9:56 AM Kui-Feng Lee <kuifeng@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Make sure BPF cookies are correct for fentry/fexit/fmod_ret.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kui-Feng Lee <kuifeng@xxxxxx>
> ---
> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_cookie.c | 52 +++++++++++++++++++
> .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_bpf_cookie.c | 24 +++++++++
> 2 files changed, 76 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_cookie.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_cookie.c
> index 923a6139b2d8..7f05056c66d4 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_cookie.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_cookie.c
> @@ -410,6 +410,56 @@ static void pe_subtest(struct test_bpf_cookie *skel)
> bpf_link__destroy(link);
> }
>
> +static void tracing_subtest(struct test_bpf_cookie *skel)
> +{
> + __u64 cookie;
> + int prog_fd;
> + int fentry_fd = -1, fexit_fd = -1, fmod_ret_fd = -1;
> +
unnecessary empty line
> + LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_test_run_opts, opts, .repeat = 1);
.repeat = 1 is not necessary, I think, .repeat = 0 is equivalent to that
> + LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_link_create_opts, link_opts);
> +
> + skel->bss->fentry_res = 0;
> + skel->bss->fexit_res = 0;
> +
> + cookie = 0x100000;
nit: make this value bigger to make sure higher 32 bits of u64 are
preserved properly. Maybe 0x1000000010000000 (and similarly with 2 and
3)
> + prog_fd = bpf_program__fd(skel->progs.fentry_test1);
> + link_opts.tracing.bpf_cookie = cookie;
> + fentry_fd = bpf_link_create(prog_fd, 0, BPF_TRACE_FENTRY, &link_opts);
> +
ASSERT_GE?
> + cookie = 0x200000;
> + prog_fd = bpf_program__fd(skel->progs.fexit_test1);
> + link_opts.tracing.bpf_cookie = cookie;
> + fexit_fd = bpf_link_create(prog_fd, 0, BPF_TRACE_FEXIT, &link_opts);
> + if (!ASSERT_GE(fexit_fd, 0, "fexit.open"))
> + goto cleanup;
> +
[...]
