From: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org
Cc: andrii@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, martin.lau@linux.dev,
kernel-team@fb.com, yonghong.song@linux.dev, void@manifault.com,
Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v1 5/8] selftests/bpf: bad_struct_ops test
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:45:53 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240227204556.17524-6-eddyz87@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240227204556.17524-1-eddyz87@gmail.com>
When loading struct_ops programs kernel requires BTF id of the
struct_ops type and member index for attachment point inside that
type. This makes it not possible to have same BPF program used in
struct_ops maps that have different struct_ops type.
Check if libbpf rejects such BPF objects files.
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
---
.../selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c | 24 +++++++++++
.../selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h | 4 ++
.../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bad_struct_ops.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++
.../selftests/bpf/progs/bad_struct_ops.c | 17 ++++++++
4 files changed, 87 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bad_struct_ops.c
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bad_struct_ops.c
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
index 0d8437e05f64..69f5eb9ad546 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
@@ -601,6 +601,29 @@ struct bpf_struct_ops bpf_bpf_testmod_ops = {
.owner = THIS_MODULE,
};
+static int bpf_dummy_reg2(void *kdata)
+{
+ struct bpf_testmod_ops2 *ops = kdata;
+
+ ops->test_1();
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static struct bpf_testmod_ops2 __bpf_testmod_ops2 = {
+ .test_1 = bpf_testmod_test_1,
+};
+
+struct bpf_struct_ops bpf_testmod_ops2 = {
+ .verifier_ops = &bpf_testmod_verifier_ops,
+ .init = bpf_testmod_ops_init,
+ .init_member = bpf_testmod_ops_init_member,
+ .reg = bpf_dummy_reg2,
+ .unreg = bpf_dummy_unreg,
+ .cfi_stubs = &__bpf_testmod_ops2,
+ .name = "bpf_testmod_ops2",
+ .owner = THIS_MODULE,
+};
+
extern int bpf_fentry_test1(int a);
static int bpf_testmod_init(void)
@@ -612,6 +635,7 @@ static int bpf_testmod_init(void)
ret = ret ?: register_btf_kfunc_id_set(BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING, &bpf_testmod_kfunc_set);
ret = ret ?: register_btf_kfunc_id_set(BPF_PROG_TYPE_SYSCALL, &bpf_testmod_kfunc_set);
ret = ret ?: register_bpf_struct_ops(&bpf_bpf_testmod_ops, bpf_testmod_ops);
+ ret = ret ?: register_bpf_struct_ops(&bpf_testmod_ops2, bpf_testmod_ops2);
if (ret < 0)
return ret;
if (bpf_fentry_test1(0) < 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..3183fff7f246 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h
@@ -37,4 +37,8 @@ struct bpf_testmod_ops {
int (*test_maybe_null)(int dummy, struct task_struct *task);
};
+struct bpf_testmod_ops2 {
+ int (*test_1)(void);
+};
+
#endif /* _BPF_TESTMOD_H */
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bad_struct_ops.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bad_struct_ops.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..9c689db4b05b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bad_struct_ops.c
@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+#include <test_progs.h>
+#include "bad_struct_ops.skel.h"
+
+#define EXPECTED_MSG "libbpf: struct_ops reloc"
+
+static libbpf_print_fn_t old_print_cb;
+static bool msg_found;
+
+static int print_cb(enum libbpf_print_level level, const char *fmt, va_list args)
+{
+ old_print_cb(level, fmt, args);
+ if (level == LIBBPF_WARN && strncmp(fmt, EXPECTED_MSG, strlen(EXPECTED_MSG)) == 0)
+ msg_found = true;
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static void test_bad_struct_ops(void)
+{
+ struct bad_struct_ops *skel;
+ int err;
+
+ old_print_cb = libbpf_set_print(print_cb);
+ skel = bad_struct_ops__open_and_load();
+ err = errno;
+ libbpf_set_print(old_print_cb);
+ if (!ASSERT_NULL(skel, "bad_struct_ops__open_and_load"))
+ return;
+
+ ASSERT_EQ(err, EINVAL, "errno should be EINVAL");
+ ASSERT_TRUE(msg_found, "expected message");
+
+ bad_struct_ops__destroy(skel);
+}
+
+void serial_test_bad_struct_ops(void)
+{
+ if (test__start_subtest("test_bad_struct_ops"))
+ test_bad_struct_ops();
+}
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bad_struct_ops.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bad_struct_ops.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..9c103afbfdb1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bad_struct_ops.c
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+#include <vmlinux.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
+#include "../bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h"
+
+char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
+
+SEC("struct_ops/test_1")
+int BPF_PROG(test_1) { return 0; }
+
+SEC(".struct_ops.link")
+struct bpf_testmod_ops testmod_1 = { .test_1 = (void *)test_1 };
+
+SEC(".struct_ops.link")
+struct bpf_testmod_ops2 testmod_2 = { .test_1 = (void *)test_1 };
--
2.43.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-27 20:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 61+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-27 20:45 [PATCH bpf-next v1 0/8] libbpf: type suffixes and autocreate flag for struct_ops maps Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-27 20:45 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 1/8] libbpf: allow version suffixes (___smth) for struct_ops types Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-27 21:47 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2024-02-27 21:49 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-28 16:29 ` David Vernet
2024-02-28 17:28 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-28 17:30 ` David Vernet
2024-02-28 23:21 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-02-28 23:37 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-27 20:45 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 2/8] libbpf: tie struct_ops programs to kernel BTF ids, not to local ids Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-28 7:41 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2024-02-28 17:23 ` David Vernet
2024-02-28 17:40 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-28 17:50 ` David Vernet
2024-02-28 23:28 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-02-28 23:31 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-28 23:34 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-02-27 20:45 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 3/8] libbpf: honor autocreate flag for struct_ops maps Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-28 17:44 ` David Vernet
2024-02-27 20:45 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 4/8] selftests/bpf: test struct_ops map definition with type suffix Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-28 18:03 ` David Vernet
2024-02-27 20:45 ` Eduard Zingerman [this message]
2024-02-28 18:15 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 5/8] selftests/bpf: bad_struct_ops test David Vernet
2024-02-28 20:06 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-28 20:11 ` David Vernet
2024-02-28 23:40 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-02-28 23:44 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-28 23:56 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-02-29 0:06 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-27 20:45 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 6/8] selftests/bpf: test autocreate behavior for struct_ops maps Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-28 18:29 ` David Vernet
2024-02-28 18:34 ` David Vernet
2024-02-28 19:31 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-28 23:43 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-02-28 23:55 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-29 0:02 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-02-29 0:56 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2024-03-01 1:28 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-01 18:03 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-03-01 18:07 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-27 20:45 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 7/8] libbpf: sync progs autoload with maps autocreate " Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-27 22:55 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2024-02-27 23:09 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-27 23:16 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2024-02-27 23:30 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-27 23:40 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2024-02-27 23:43 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-28 0:12 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2024-02-28 0:50 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-28 2:10 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2024-02-28 12:36 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-28 23:55 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-02-29 0:04 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-29 0:14 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-02-29 0:25 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2024-02-29 0:30 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-02-29 0:37 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2024-02-29 0:40 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-27 20:45 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 8/8] selftests/bpf: tests for struct_ops autoload/autocreate toggling Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-28 18:36 ` David Vernet
2024-02-28 20:10 ` Eduard Zingerman
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=20240227204556.17524-6-eddyz87@gmail.com \
--to=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=void@manifault.com \
--cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
/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.