From: Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com>
To: Leon Hwang <hffilwlqm@gmail.com>
Cc: <ast@kernel.org>, <daniel@iogearbox.net>, <andrii@kernel.org>,
<song@kernel.org>, <iii@linux.ibm.com>, <jakub@cloudflare.com>,
<bpf@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next v4 3/4] selftests/bpf: Correct map_fd to data_fd in tailcalls
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2023 21:22:35 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZPd/+49iX6DrSyCE@boxer> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230903151448.61696-4-hffilwlqm@gmail.com>
On Sun, Sep 03, 2023 at 11:14:47PM +0800, Leon Hwang wrote:
> Get and check data_fd. It should not to check map_fd again.
>
> Fixes: 79d49ba048ec ("bpf, testing: Add various tail call test cases")
> Fixes: 3b0379111197 ("selftests/bpf: Add tailcall_bpf2bpf tests")
> Fixes: 5e0b0a4c52d3 ("selftests/bpf: Test tail call counting with bpf2bpf and data on stack")
> Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <hffilwlqm@gmail.com>
This could be pulled out of this RFC set and sent separately to bpf tree,
given that Ilya is taking a look at addressing s390 jit.
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tailcalls.c | 12 ++++++------
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tailcalls.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tailcalls.c
> index 58fe2c586ed76..b20d7f77a5bce 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tailcalls.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tailcalls.c
> @@ -274,7 +274,7 @@ static void test_tailcall_count(const char *which)
> return;
>
> data_fd = bpf_map__fd(data_map);
> - if (CHECK_FAIL(map_fd < 0))
> + if (CHECK_FAIL(data_fd < 0))
> return;
>
> i = 0;
> @@ -355,7 +355,7 @@ static void test_tailcall_4(void)
> return;
>
> data_fd = bpf_map__fd(data_map);
> - if (CHECK_FAIL(map_fd < 0))
> + if (CHECK_FAIL(data_fd < 0))
> return;
>
> for (i = 0; i < bpf_map__max_entries(prog_array); i++) {
> @@ -445,7 +445,7 @@ static void test_tailcall_5(void)
> return;
>
> data_fd = bpf_map__fd(data_map);
> - if (CHECK_FAIL(map_fd < 0))
> + if (CHECK_FAIL(data_fd < 0))
> return;
shouldn't this be 'goto out' ? applies to the rest of the code i believe.
>
> for (i = 0; i < bpf_map__max_entries(prog_array); i++) {
> @@ -634,7 +634,7 @@ static void test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_2(void)
> return;
>
> data_fd = bpf_map__fd(data_map);
> - if (CHECK_FAIL(map_fd < 0))
> + if (CHECK_FAIL(data_fd < 0))
> return;
>
> i = 0;
> @@ -808,7 +808,7 @@ static void test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_4(bool noise)
> return;
>
> data_fd = bpf_map__fd(data_map);
> - if (CHECK_FAIL(map_fd < 0))
> + if (CHECK_FAIL(data_fd < 0))
> return;
>
> i = 0;
> @@ -872,7 +872,7 @@ static void test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_6(void)
> ASSERT_EQ(topts.retval, 0, "tailcall retval");
>
> data_fd = bpf_map__fd(obj->maps.bss);
> - if (!ASSERT_GE(map_fd, 0, "bss map fd"))
> + if (!ASSERT_GE(data_fd, 0, "bss map fd"))
> goto out;
>
> i = 0;
> --
> 2.41.0
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-09-05 19:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-09-03 15:14 [RFC PATCH bpf-next v4 0/4] bpf, x64: Fix tailcall infinite loop Leon Hwang
2023-09-03 15:14 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next v4 1/4] bpf, x64: Comment tail_call_cnt initialisation Leon Hwang
2023-09-05 19:26 ` Maciej Fijalkowski
2023-09-06 2:23 ` Leon Hwang
2023-09-03 15:14 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next v4 2/4] bpf, x64: Fix tailcall infinite loop Leon Hwang
2023-09-06 20:50 ` Maciej Fijalkowski
2023-09-03 15:14 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next v4 3/4] selftests/bpf: Correct map_fd to data_fd in tailcalls Leon Hwang
2023-09-05 19:22 ` Maciej Fijalkowski [this message]
2023-09-06 2:29 ` Leon Hwang
2023-09-03 15:14 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next v4 4/4] selftests/bpf: Add testcases for tailcall infinite loop fixing Leon Hwang
2023-09-06 21:18 ` Maciej Fijalkowski
2023-09-07 3:53 ` Leon Hwang
2023-09-04 13:10 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next v4 0/4] bpf, x64: Fix tailcall infinite loop Ilya Leoshkevich
2023-09-04 15:15 ` Leon Hwang
2023-09-06 0:57 ` Ilya Leoshkevich
2023-09-06 2:39 ` Leon Hwang
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=ZPd/+49iX6DrSyCE@boxer \
--to=maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=hffilwlqm@gmail.com \
--cc=iii@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=jakub@cloudflare.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.