From: Kui-Feng Lee <thinker.li@gmail.com>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, martin.lau@linux.dev,
song@kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com, andrii@kernel.org,
quentin@isovalent.com
Cc: sinquersw@gmail.com, kuifeng@meta.com,
Kui-Feng Lee <thinker.li@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v5 6/6] selftests/bpf: Test if shadow types work correctly.
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 17:04:32 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240227010432.714127-7-thinker.li@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240227010432.714127-1-thinker.li@gmail.com>
Change the values of fields, including scalar types and function pointers,
and check if the struct_ops map works as expected.
The test changes the field "test_2" of "testmod_1" from the pointer to
test_2() to pointer to test_3() and the field "data" to 13. The function
test_2() and test_3() both compute a new value for "test_2_result", but in
different way. By checking the value of "test_2_result", it ensures the
struct_ops map works as expected with changes through shadow types.
Signed-off-by: Kui-Feng Lee <thinker.li@gmail.com>
---
.../selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c | 11 ++++++++++-
.../selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h | 8 ++++++++
.../bpf/prog_tests/test_struct_ops_module.c | 19 +++++++++++++++----
.../selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_module.c | 8 ++++++++
4 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
index 66787e99ba1b..098ddd067224 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
@@ -539,6 +539,15 @@ static int bpf_testmod_ops_init_member(const struct btf_type *t,
const struct btf_member *member,
void *kdata, const void *udata)
{
+ if (member->offset == offsetof(struct bpf_testmod_ops, data) * 8) {
+ /* For data fields, this function has to copy it and return
+ * 1 to indicate that the data has been handled by the
+ * struct_ops type, or the verifier will reject the map if
+ * the value of the data field is not zero.
+ */
+ ((struct bpf_testmod_ops *)kdata)->data = ((struct bpf_testmod_ops *)udata)->data;
+ return 1;
+ }
return 0;
}
@@ -559,7 +568,7 @@ static int bpf_dummy_reg(void *kdata)
* initialized, so we need to check for NULL.
*/
if (ops->test_2)
- ops->test_2(4, 3);
+ ops->test_2(4, ops->data);
return 0;
}
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h
index c3b0cf788f9f..971458acfac3 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h
@@ -35,6 +35,14 @@ struct bpf_testmod_ops {
void (*test_2)(int a, int b);
/* Used to test nullable arguments. */
int (*test_maybe_null)(int dummy, struct task_struct *task);
+
+ /* The following fields are used to test shadow copies. */
+ char onebyte;
+ struct {
+ int a;
+ int b;
+ } unsupported;
+ int data;
};
#endif /* _BPF_TESTMOD_H */
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_struct_ops_module.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_struct_ops_module.c
index 8d833f0c7580..7d6facf46ebb 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_struct_ops_module.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_struct_ops_module.c
@@ -32,17 +32,23 @@ static void check_map_info(struct bpf_map_info *info)
static void test_struct_ops_load(void)
{
- DECLARE_LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_object_open_opts, opts);
struct struct_ops_module *skel;
struct bpf_map_info info = {};
struct bpf_link *link;
int err;
u32 len;
- skel = struct_ops_module__open_opts(&opts);
+ skel = struct_ops_module__open();
if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "struct_ops_module_open"))
return;
+ skel->struct_ops.testmod_1->data = 13;
+ skel->struct_ops.testmod_1->test_2 = skel->progs.test_3;
+ /* Since test_2() is not being used, it should be disabled from
+ * auto-loading, or it will fail to load.
+ */
+ bpf_program__set_autoload(skel->progs.test_2, false);
+
err = struct_ops_module__load(skel);
if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "struct_ops_module_load"))
goto cleanup;
@@ -56,8 +62,13 @@ static void test_struct_ops_load(void)
link = bpf_map__attach_struct_ops(skel->maps.testmod_1);
ASSERT_OK_PTR(link, "attach_test_mod_1");
- /* test_2() will be called from bpf_dummy_reg() in bpf_testmod.c */
- ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->test_2_result, 7, "test_2_result");
+ /* test_3() will be called from bpf_dummy_reg() in bpf_testmod.c
+ *
+ * In bpf_testmod.c it will pass 4 and 13 (the value of data) to
+ * .test_2. So, the value of test_2_result should be 20 (4 + 13 +
+ * 3).
+ */
+ ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->test_2_result, 20, "check_shadow_variables");
bpf_link__destroy(link);
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_module.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_module.c
index b78746b3cef3..25952fa09348 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_module.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_module.c
@@ -21,9 +21,17 @@ void BPF_PROG(test_2, int a, int b)
test_2_result = a + b;
}
+SEC("struct_ops/test_3")
+int BPF_PROG(test_3, int a, int b)
+{
+ test_2_result = a + b + 3;
+ return a + b + 3;
+}
+
SEC(".struct_ops.link")
struct bpf_testmod_ops testmod_1 = {
.test_1 = (void *)test_1,
.test_2 = (void *)test_2,
+ .data = 0x1,
};
--
2.34.1
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-27 1:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-27 1:04 [PATCH bpf-next v5 0/6] Create shadow types for struct_ops maps in skeletons Kui-Feng Lee
2024-02-27 1:04 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 1/6] libbpf: expose resolve_func_ptr() through libbpf_internal.h Kui-Feng Lee
2024-02-28 14:38 ` Quentin Monnet
2024-02-28 17:45 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-02-28 18:27 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2024-02-27 1:04 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 2/6] libbpf: set btf_value_type_id of struct bpf_map for struct_ops Kui-Feng Lee
2024-02-28 17:48 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-02-28 21:24 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2024-02-27 1:04 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 3/6] libbpf: Convert st_ops->data to shadow type Kui-Feng Lee
2024-02-28 17:58 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-02-28 18:18 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2024-02-28 19:27 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2024-02-27 1:04 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 4/6] bpftool: generated shadow variables for struct_ops maps Kui-Feng Lee
2024-02-28 18:25 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-02-28 21:21 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2024-02-28 22:28 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2024-02-29 0:09 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-02-29 0:44 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2024-02-29 0:51 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2024-02-29 1:03 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-02-29 1:14 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2024-02-27 1:04 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 5/6] bpftool: Add an example for struct_ops map and shadow type Kui-Feng Lee
2024-02-28 14:38 ` Quentin Monnet
2024-02-27 1:04 ` Kui-Feng Lee [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20240227010432.714127-7-thinker.li@gmail.com \
--to=thinker.li@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=kuifeng@meta.com \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=quentin@isovalent.com \
--cc=sinquersw@gmail.com \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.