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,
sinquersw@gmail.com, Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v2 15/15] selftests/bpf: test cases for '?' in BTF names
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2024 03:19:20 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240302011920.15302-16-eddyz87@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240302011920.15302-1-eddyz87@gmail.com>
Three test cases to verify when '?' is allowed in BTF names:
- allowed as first character in DATASEC name;
- not allowed as non-first character in DATASEC name;
- not allowed in any position in non-DATASEC names.
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 46 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c
index 816145bcb647..88c71e3924b9 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c
@@ -3535,6 +3535,49 @@ static struct btf_raw_test raw_tests[] = {
.value_type_id = 1,
.max_entries = 1,
},
+{
+ .descr = "datasec: name '?.foo' is ok",
+ .raw_types = {
+ /* int */
+ BTF_TYPE_INT_ENC(0, BTF_INT_SIGNED, 0, 32, 4), /* [1] */
+ /* VAR x */ /* [2] */
+ BTF_TYPE_ENC(1, BTF_INFO_ENC(BTF_KIND_VAR, 0, 0), 1),
+ BTF_VAR_STATIC,
+ /* DATASEC ?.data */ /* [3] */
+ BTF_TYPE_ENC(3, BTF_INFO_ENC(BTF_KIND_DATASEC, 0, 1), 4),
+ BTF_VAR_SECINFO_ENC(2, 0, 4),
+ BTF_END_RAW,
+ },
+ BTF_STR_SEC("\0x\0?.foo"),
+},
+{
+ .descr = "datasec: name '.?foo' is not ok",
+ .raw_types = {
+ /* int */
+ BTF_TYPE_INT_ENC(0, BTF_INT_SIGNED, 0, 32, 4), /* [1] */
+ /* VAR x */ /* [2] */
+ BTF_TYPE_ENC(1, BTF_INFO_ENC(BTF_KIND_VAR, 0, 0), 1),
+ BTF_VAR_STATIC,
+ /* DATASEC ?.data */ /* [3] */
+ BTF_TYPE_ENC(3, BTF_INFO_ENC(BTF_KIND_DATASEC, 0, 1), 4),
+ BTF_VAR_SECINFO_ENC(2, 0, 4),
+ BTF_END_RAW,
+ },
+ BTF_STR_SEC("\0x\0.?foo"),
+ .err_str = "Invalid name",
+ .btf_load_err = true,
+},
+{
+ .descr = "type name '?foo' is not ok",
+ .raw_types = {
+ /* union ?foo; */
+ BTF_TYPE_ENC(1, BTF_INFO_ENC(BTF_KIND_FWD, 1, 0), 0), /* [1] */
+ BTF_END_RAW,
+ },
+ BTF_STR_SEC("\0?foo"),
+ .err_str = "Invalid name",
+ .btf_load_err = true,
+},
{
.descr = "float test #1, well-formed",
@@ -4363,6 +4406,9 @@ static void do_test_raw(unsigned int test_num)
if (err || btf_fd < 0)
goto done;
+ if (!test->map_type)
+ goto done;
+
opts.btf_fd = btf_fd;
opts.btf_key_type_id = test->key_type_id;
opts.btf_value_type_id = test->value_type_id;
--
2.43.0
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-02 1:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-02 1:19 [PATCH bpf-next v2 00/15] libbpf: type suffixes and autocreate flag for struct_ops maps Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 01/15] libbpf: allow version suffixes (___smth) for struct_ops types Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 02/15] libbpf: tie struct_ops programs to kernel BTF ids, not to local ids Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 03/15] libbpf: honor autocreate flag for struct_ops maps Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 04/15] selftests/bpf: test struct_ops map definition with type suffix Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 05/15] selftests/bpf: utility functions to capture libbpf log in test_progs Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 06/15] selftests/bpf: bad_struct_ops test Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 07/15] selftests/bpf: test autocreate behavior for struct_ops maps Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 08/15] libbpf: sync progs autoload with maps autocreate " Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-04 19:13 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 09/15] selftests/bpf: verify struct_ops autoload/autocreate sync Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 10/15] libbpf: replace elf_state->st_ops_* fields with SEC_ST_OPS sec_type Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 11/15] libbpf: struct_ops in SEC("?.struct_ops") and SEC("?.struct_ops.link") Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 12/15] libbpf: rewrite btf datasec names starting from '?' Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 13/15] selftests/bpf: test case for SEC("?.struct_ops") Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 14/15] bpf: allow '?' at the beginning of DATASEC names Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` Eduard Zingerman [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=20240302011920.15302-16-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=sinquersw@gmail.com \
--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.