On 10/24/23 7:28 PM, Kui-Feng Lee wrote:
Thank you for the patches.
I found you have two patches in this set.
You can generate both patch at once with git format-patch.
format-patch will give each patch a number in their order.
For example, the subject of this message will be
[PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftest/bpf: Add malloc ....
And, you put both patches in the same directory. And sent them at once
by giving the path of the directory. For example,
git send-email --to=bpf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx path/to/the/directory/
These patches will be sent in a thread instead of two independent
messages.
Yuran, second to Kui-Feng's suggestion which is also my original
suggestion although I forgot to explicitly mention that two
patches should be in the same patch set.
I found one issue with the CHECK->ASSERT patch, so please
respin with patch v2 with two patches as the same set.
On 10/24/23 18:52, Yuran Pereira wrote:
Since some malloc calls in bpf_iter may at times fail,
this patch adds the appropriate fail checks, and ensures that
any previously allocated resource is appropriately destroyed
before returning the function.
This is patch 2 in the sequence should be applied after d1a88d37cecc
"selftests/bpf: Convert CHECK macros to ASSERT_* macros in bpf_iter"
Patch 1:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/DB3PR10MB683589A5F705C6CA5BE0D325E8DFA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Yuran Pereira <yuran.pereira@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_iter.c | 10 +++++++++-
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_iter.c
b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_iter.c
index 526ac4e741ee..c6cf42c64af3 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_iter.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_iter.c
@@ -700,7 +700,7 @@ static void test_overflow(bool
test_e2big_overflow, bool ret1)
goto free_link;
buf = malloc(expected_read_len);
- if (!buf)
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(buf, "malloc"))
goto close_iter;
/* do read */
@@ -871,6 +871,10 @@ static void test_bpf_percpu_hash_map(void)
skel->rodata->num_cpus = bpf_num_possible_cpus();
val = malloc(8 * bpf_num_possible_cpus());
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(val, "malloc")) {
+ bpf_iter_bpf_percpu_hash_map__destroy(skel);
+ return;
+ }
You can just do "goto out;" here.
err = bpf_iter_bpf_percpu_hash_map__load(skel);
if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "bpf_iter_bpf_percpu_hash_map__load"))
@@ -1048,6 +1052,10 @@ static void test_bpf_percpu_array_map(void)
skel->rodata->num_cpus = bpf_num_possible_cpus();
val = malloc(8 * bpf_num_possible_cpus());
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(val, "malloc")) {
+ bpf_iter_bpf_percpu_array_map__destroy(skel);
+ return;
+ }
Same here, even it will call free(val), free(val) will do nothing when
val is NULL.
err = bpf_iter_bpf_percpu_array_map__load(skel);
if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "bpf_iter_bpf_percpu_array_map__load"))
