On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 9:00 PM Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 7:25 AM Alexei Starovoitov
> <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 06:48:34PM +0800, menglong8.dong@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > From: Menglong Dong <imagedong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Add fentry_many_args.c and fexit_many_args.c to test the fentry/fexit
> > > with 7/11 arguments. As this feature is not supported by arm64 yet, we
> > > disable these testcases for arm64 in DENYLIST.aarch64. We can combine
> > > them with fentry_test.c/fexit_test.c when arm64 is supported too.
> > >
> > > Correspondingly, add bpf_testmod_fentry_test7() and
> > > bpf_testmod_fentry_test11() to bpf_testmod.c
> > >
> > > Meanwhile, add bpf_modify_return_test2() to test_run.c to test the
> > > MODIFY_RETURN with 7 arguments.
> > >
> > > Add bpf_testmod_test_struct_arg_7/bpf_testmod_test_struct_arg_7 in
> > > bpf_testmod.c to test the struct in the arguments.
> > >
> > > And the testcases passed on x86_64:
> > >
> > > ./test_progs -t fexit
> > > Summary: 5/14 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
> > >
> > > ./test_progs -t fentry
> > > Summary: 3/2 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
> > >
> > > ./test_progs -t modify_return
> > > Summary: 1/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
> > >
> > > ./test_progs -t tracing_struct
> > > Summary: 1/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong <imagedong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > v8:
> > > - split the testcases, and add fentry_many_args/fexit_many_args to
> > > DENYLIST.aarch64
> > > v6:
> > > - add testcases to tracing_struct.c instead of fentry_test.c and
> > > fexit_test.c
> > > v5:
> > > - add testcases for MODIFY_RETURN
> > > 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
> > > ---
> > > net/bpf/test_run.c | 23 ++++++--
> > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/DENYLIST.aarch64 | 2 +
> > > .../selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c | 49 ++++++++++++++++-
> > > .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fentry_test.c | 43 +++++++++++++--
> > > .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fexit_test.c | 43 +++++++++++++--
> > > .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/modify_return.c | 20 ++++++-
> > > .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tracing_struct.c | 19 +++++++
> > > .../selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_many_args.c | 39 ++++++++++++++
> > > .../selftests/bpf/progs/fexit_many_args.c | 40 ++++++++++++++
> > > .../selftests/bpf/progs/modify_return.c | 40 ++++++++++++++
> > > .../selftests/bpf/progs/tracing_struct.c | 54 +++++++++++++++++++
> > > 11 files changed, 358 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> > > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_many_args.c
> > > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fexit_many_args.c
> > >
> > > diff --git a/net/bpf/test_run.c b/net/bpf/test_run.c
> > > index 63b11f7a5392..1c59fa60077b 100644
> > > --- a/net/bpf/test_run.c
> > > +++ b/net/bpf/test_run.c
> > > @@ -565,6 +565,13 @@ __bpf_kfunc int bpf_modify_return_test(int a, int *b)
> > > return a + *b;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +__bpf_kfunc int bpf_modify_return_test2(int a, int *b, short c, int d,
> > > + void *e, char f, int g)
> > > +{
> > > + *b += 1;
> > > + return a + *b + c + d + (long)e + f + g;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > int noinline bpf_fentry_shadow_test(int a)
> > > {
> > > return a + 1;
> > > @@ -600,9 +607,13 @@ __diag_pop();
> > >
> > > BTF_SET8_START(bpf_test_modify_return_ids)
> > > BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_modify_return_test)
> > > +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_modify_return_test2)
> > > BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_fentry_test1, KF_SLEEPABLE)
> > > BTF_SET8_END(bpf_test_modify_return_ids)
> > >
> > > +BTF_ID_LIST(bpf_modify_return_test_id)
> > > +BTF_ID(func, bpf_modify_return_test)
> > > +
> > > static const struct btf_kfunc_id_set bpf_test_modify_return_set = {
> > > .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> > > .set = &bpf_test_modify_return_ids,
> > > @@ -665,9 +676,15 @@ int bpf_prog_test_run_tracing(struct bpf_prog *prog,
> > > goto out;
> > > break;
> > > case BPF_MODIFY_RETURN:
> > > - ret = bpf_modify_return_test(1, &b);
> > > - if (b != 2)
> > > - side_effect = 1;
> > > + if (prog->aux->attach_btf_id == *bpf_modify_return_test_id) {
> > > + ret = bpf_modify_return_test(1, &b);
> > > + if (b != 2)
> > > + side_effect = 1;
> > > + } else {
> > > + ret = bpf_modify_return_test2(1, &b, 3, 4, (void *)5, 6, 7);
> > > + if (b != 2)
> > > + side_effect = 1;
> >
> > Patches 1 and 2 look good, but I don't like where this check will lead us:
> > attach_btf_id == *bpf_modify_return_test_id...
> >
>
> Yeah, I don't like it either, which makes the code weak.
>
> > When Jiri did a conversion of all test func into bpf_testmod.ko I forgot
> > why we couldn't move fmod_ret tests as well.
> > Whatever it was the extra attach_btf_id check will make it worse.
> >
>
> I think it's because the side effect can't be verified
> by the BPF program, which makes it have to be run by
> bpf_prog_test_run_opts().
>
> > For now please think of a way to test fmod_ret when bpf_prog_test_run_tracing()
> > does something unconditional like:
> > ret = bpf_modify_return_test(1, &b);
> > if (b != 2)
> > side_effect++;
> > ret = bpf_modify_return_test2(1, &b, 3, 4, (void *)5, 6, 7);
>
> Should it be like this?
>
> ret += bpf_modify_return_test2(1, &b, 3, 4, (void *)5, 6, 7);
>
> Or the return of bpf_modify_return_test() can't be verified.
Fine by me.
As long as attach_btf_id check is removed. It's good.
