On 6/9/23 2:56 AM, menglong8.dong@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: Menglong Dong <imagedong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Add test9/test10 in fexit_test.c and fentry_test.c to test the fentry
and fexit whose target function have 7/12 arguments.
Correspondingly, add bpf_testmod_fentry_test7() and
bpf_testmod_fentry_test12() to bpf_testmod.c
And the testcases passed:
./test_progs -t fexit
Summary: 5/12 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
./test_progs -t fentry
Summary: 3/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong <imagedong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
v4:
- use different type for args in bpf_testmod_fentry_test{7,12}
- add testcase for grabage values in ctx
v3:
- move bpf_fentry_test{7,12} to bpf_testmod.c and rename them to
bpf_testmod_fentry_test{7,12} meanwhile
- get return value by bpf_get_func_ret() in
"fexit/bpf_testmod_fentry_test12", as we don't change ___bpf_ctx_cast()
in this version
---
.../selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c | 19 ++++++-
.../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fentry_fexit.c | 4 +-
.../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fentry_test.c | 2 +
.../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fexit_test.c | 2 +
.../testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_test.c | 33 +++++++++++
.../testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fexit_test.c | 57 +++++++++++++++++++
6 files changed, 115 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
index cf216041876c..66615fdbe3df 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
@@ -191,6 +191,19 @@ noinline int bpf_testmod_fentry_test3(char a, int b, u64 c)
return a + b + c;
}
+noinline int bpf_testmod_fentry_test7(u64 a, void *b, short c, int d,
+ void *e, u64 f, u64 g)
+{
+ return a + (long)b + c + d + (long)e + f + g;
+}
+
+noinline int bpf_testmod_fentry_test12(u64 a, void *b, short c, int d,
+ void *e, u64 f, u64 g, u64 h,
+ u64 i, u64 j, u64 k, u64 l)
+{
+ return a + (long)b + c + d + (long)e + f + g + h + i + j + k + l;
+}
It would be great to add a couple cases with struct arguments
where each struct has 8 < struct_size <= 16.
__diag_pop();
int bpf_testmod_fentry_ok;
@@ -245,7 +258,11 @@ bpf_testmod_test_read(struct file *file, struct kobject *kobj,
if (bpf_testmod_fentry_test1(1) != 2 ||
bpf_testmod_fentry_test2(2, 3) != 5 ||
- bpf_testmod_fentry_test3(4, 5, 6) != 15)
+ bpf_testmod_fentry_test3(4, 5, 6) != 15 ||
+ bpf_testmod_fentry_test7(16, (void *)17, 18, 19, (void *)20,
+ 21, 22) != 133 ||
+ bpf_testmod_fentry_test12(16, (void *)17, 18, 19, (void *)20,
+ 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27) != 258)
goto out;
bpf_testmod_fentry_ok = 1;
[...]
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fexit_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fexit_test.c
index 8f1ccb7302e1..a6d8e03ff5b7 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fexit_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fexit_test.c
@@ -78,3 +78,60 @@ int BPF_PROG(test8, struct bpf_fentry_test_t *arg)
test8_result = 1;
return 0;
}
+
+__u64 test9_result = 0;
+SEC("fexit/bpf_testmod_fentry_test7")
+int BPF_PROG(test9, __u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, void *e, char f,
+ int g, int ret)
+{
+ test9_result = a == 16 && b == (void *)17 && c == 18 && d == 19 &&
+ e == (void *)20 && f == 21 && g == 22 && ret == 133;
+ return 0;
+}
+
+__u64 test10_result = 0;
+SEC("fexit/bpf_testmod_fentry_test12")
+int BPF_PROG(test10, __u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, void *e, char f,
+ int g, unsigned int h, long i, __u64 j, unsigned long k,
+ unsigned char l)
+{
+ __u64 ret;
+ int err;
+
+ /* BPF_PROG() don't support 14 arguments, and ctx[12] can't be
+ * accessed yet. So we get the return value by bpf_get_func_ret()
+ * for now.
+ */
+ err = bpf_get_func_ret(ctx, &ret);
Maybe just have 11 arguments for this test case?
+ if (err)
+ return 0;
+
+ test10_result = a == 16 && b == (void *)17 && c == 18 && d == 19 &&
+ e == (void *)20 && f == 21 && g == 22 && h == 23 &&
+ i == 24 && j == 25 && k == 26 && l == 27 &&
+ (int)ret == 258;
+ return 0;
+}
+
+__u64 test11_result = 0;
+SEC("fexit/bpf_testmod_fentry_test12")
+int BPF_PROG(test11, __u64 a, __u64 b, __u64 c, __u64 d, __u64 e, __u64 f,
+ __u64 g, __u64 h, __u64 i, __u64 j, __u64 k, __u64 l)
+{
+ __u64 ret;
+ int err;
+
+ /* BPF_PROG() don't support 14 arguments, and ctx[12] can't be
+ * accessed yet. So we get the return value by bpf_get_func_ret()
+ * for now.
+ */
+ err = bpf_get_func_ret(ctx, &ret);
+ if (err)
+ return 0;
+
+ test11_result = a == 16 && b == 17 && c == 18 && d == 19 &&
+ e == 20 && f == 21 && g == 22 && h == 23 &&
+ i == 24 && j == 25 && k == 26 && l == 27 &&
+ ret == 258;
+ return 0;
+}
