On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 10:54 PM Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 1:50 AM <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> > > --- > > v9: > > - change the way to test fmod_ret > > 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 | 14 ++++- > > 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 | 10 ++-- > > .../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, 340 insertions(+), 13 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..7d47f53f20c1 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; > > @@ -600,6 +607,7 @@ __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) > > > > @@ -667,7 +675,11 @@ int bpf_prog_test_run_tracing(struct bpf_prog *prog, > > case BPF_MODIFY_RETURN: > > ret = bpf_modify_return_test(1, &b); > > if (b != 2) > > - side_effect = 1; > > + side_effect++; > > + b = 2; > > + ret += bpf_modify_return_test2(1, &b, 3, 4, (void *)5, 6, 7); > > + if (b != 2) > > + side_effect++; > > Looks better, but now two tests are failing: > Error: #85 get_func_args_test > Error: #252 trampoline_count > > See BPF CI. > > I suspect you haven't rerun the whole test_progs after your changes. > Please do so in the future. ......Yes, I didn't run the whole tests, and it seems that some other test cases also use the bpf_modify_return_test(). I'll run the whole test_progs, sorry for the bother...... Thanks! Menglong Dong