From: Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@fb.com>
To: <bpf@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Kernel Team <kernel-team@fb.com>,
Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@fb.com>
Subject: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 03/11] selftests/bpf: Update linked_list tests for non-owning ref semantics
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2023 09:41:36 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230209174144.3280955-4-davemarchevsky@fb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230209174144.3280955-1-davemarchevsky@fb.com>
Current linked_list semantics for release_on_unlock node refs are almost
exactly the same as newly-introduced "non-owning reference" concept. The
only difference: writes to a release_on_unlock node ref are not allowed,
while writes to non-owning reference pointees are.
As a result the linked_list "write after push" failure tests are no
longer scenarios that should fail.
The test##_missing_lock_##op and test##_incorrect_lock_##op
macro-generated failure tests need to have a valid node argument in
order to have the same error output as before. Otherwise verification
will fail early and the expected error output won't be seen.
Some other tests have minor changes in error output, but fail for the
same reason.
Signed-off-by: Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@fb.com>
---
.../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/linked_list.c | 6 +-
.../testing/selftests/bpf/progs/linked_list.c | 2 +-
.../selftests/bpf/progs/linked_list_fail.c | 100 +++++++++++-------
3 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/linked_list.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/linked_list.c
index 9a7d4c47af63..0a0fdaec98bd 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/linked_list.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/linked_list.c
@@ -78,12 +78,10 @@ static struct {
{ "direct_write_head", "direct access to bpf_list_head is disallowed" },
{ "direct_read_node", "direct access to bpf_list_node is disallowed" },
{ "direct_write_node", "direct access to bpf_list_node is disallowed" },
- { "write_after_push_front", "only read is supported" },
- { "write_after_push_back", "only read is supported" },
{ "use_after_unlock_push_front", "invalid mem access 'scalar'" },
{ "use_after_unlock_push_back", "invalid mem access 'scalar'" },
- { "double_push_front", "arg#1 expected pointer to allocated object" },
- { "double_push_back", "arg#1 expected pointer to allocated object" },
+ { "double_push_front", "allocated object must be referenced" },
+ { "double_push_back", "allocated object must be referenced" },
{ "no_node_value_type", "bpf_list_node not found at offset=0" },
{ "incorrect_value_type",
"operation on bpf_list_head expects arg#1 bpf_list_node at offset=0 in struct foo, "
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/linked_list.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/linked_list.c
index 4ad88da5cda2..4fa4a9b01bde 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/linked_list.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/linked_list.c
@@ -260,7 +260,7 @@ int test_list_push_pop_multiple(struct bpf_spin_lock *lock, struct bpf_list_head
{
int ret;
- ret = list_push_pop_multiple(lock ,head, false);
+ ret = list_push_pop_multiple(lock, head, false);
if (ret)
return ret;
return list_push_pop_multiple(lock, head, true);
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/linked_list_fail.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/linked_list_fail.c
index 1d9017240e19..69cdc07cba13 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/linked_list_fail.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/linked_list_fail.c
@@ -54,28 +54,44 @@
return 0; \
}
-CHECK(kptr, push_front, &f->head);
-CHECK(kptr, push_back, &f->head);
CHECK(kptr, pop_front, &f->head);
CHECK(kptr, pop_back, &f->head);
-CHECK(global, push_front, &ghead);
-CHECK(global, push_back, &ghead);
CHECK(global, pop_front, &ghead);
CHECK(global, pop_back, &ghead);
-CHECK(map, push_front, &v->head);
-CHECK(map, push_back, &v->head);
CHECK(map, pop_front, &v->head);
CHECK(map, pop_back, &v->head);
-CHECK(inner_map, push_front, &iv->head);
-CHECK(inner_map, push_back, &iv->head);
CHECK(inner_map, pop_front, &iv->head);
CHECK(inner_map, pop_back, &iv->head);
#undef CHECK
+#define CHECK(test, op, hexpr, nexpr) \
+ SEC("?tc") \
+ int test##_missing_lock_##op(void *ctx) \
+ { \
+ INIT; \
+ void (*p)(void *, void *) = (void *)&bpf_list_##op; \
+ p(hexpr, nexpr); \
+ return 0; \
+ }
+
+CHECK(kptr, push_front, &f->head, b);
+CHECK(kptr, push_back, &f->head, b);
+
+CHECK(global, push_front, &ghead, f);
+CHECK(global, push_back, &ghead, f);
+
+CHECK(map, push_front, &v->head, f);
+CHECK(map, push_back, &v->head, f);
+
+CHECK(inner_map, push_front, &iv->head, f);
+CHECK(inner_map, push_back, &iv->head, f);
+
+#undef CHECK
+
#define CHECK(test, op, lexpr, hexpr) \
SEC("?tc") \
int test##_incorrect_lock_##op(void *ctx) \
@@ -108,11 +124,47 @@ CHECK(inner_map, pop_back, &iv->head);
CHECK(inner_map_global, op, &iv->lock, &ghead); \
CHECK(inner_map_map, op, &iv->lock, &v->head);
-CHECK_OP(push_front);
-CHECK_OP(push_back);
CHECK_OP(pop_front);
CHECK_OP(pop_back);
+#undef CHECK
+#undef CHECK_OP
+
+#define CHECK(test, op, lexpr, hexpr, nexpr) \
+ SEC("?tc") \
+ int test##_incorrect_lock_##op(void *ctx) \
+ { \
+ INIT; \
+ void (*p)(void *, void*) = (void *)&bpf_list_##op; \
+ bpf_spin_lock(lexpr); \
+ p(hexpr, nexpr); \
+ return 0; \
+ }
+
+#define CHECK_OP(op) \
+ CHECK(kptr_kptr, op, &f1->lock, &f2->head, b); \
+ CHECK(kptr_global, op, &f1->lock, &ghead, f); \
+ CHECK(kptr_map, op, &f1->lock, &v->head, f); \
+ CHECK(kptr_inner_map, op, &f1->lock, &iv->head, f); \
+ \
+ CHECK(global_global, op, &glock2, &ghead, f); \
+ CHECK(global_kptr, op, &glock, &f1->head, b); \
+ CHECK(global_map, op, &glock, &v->head, f); \
+ CHECK(global_inner_map, op, &glock, &iv->head, f); \
+ \
+ CHECK(map_map, op, &v->lock, &v2->head, f); \
+ CHECK(map_kptr, op, &v->lock, &f2->head, b); \
+ CHECK(map_global, op, &v->lock, &ghead, f); \
+ CHECK(map_inner_map, op, &v->lock, &iv->head, f); \
+ \
+ CHECK(inner_map_inner_map, op, &iv->lock, &iv2->head, f); \
+ CHECK(inner_map_kptr, op, &iv->lock, &f2->head, b); \
+ CHECK(inner_map_global, op, &iv->lock, &ghead, f); \
+ CHECK(inner_map_map, op, &iv->lock, &v->head, f);
+
+CHECK_OP(push_front);
+CHECK_OP(push_back);
+
#undef CHECK
#undef CHECK_OP
#undef INIT
@@ -303,34 +355,6 @@ int direct_write_node(void *ctx)
return 0;
}
-static __always_inline
-int write_after_op(void (*push_op)(void *head, void *node))
-{
- struct foo *f;
-
- f = bpf_obj_new(typeof(*f));
- if (!f)
- return 0;
- bpf_spin_lock(&glock);
- push_op(&ghead, &f->node);
- f->data = 42;
- bpf_spin_unlock(&glock);
-
- return 0;
-}
-
-SEC("?tc")
-int write_after_push_front(void *ctx)
-{
- return write_after_op((void *)bpf_list_push_front);
-}
-
-SEC("?tc")
-int write_after_push_back(void *ctx)
-{
- return write_after_op((void *)bpf_list_push_back);
-}
-
static __always_inline
int use_after_unlock(void (*op)(void *head, void *node))
{
--
2.30.2
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-02-09 17:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-02-09 17:41 [PATCH v4 bpf-next 00/11] BPF rbtree next-gen datastructure Dave Marchevsky
2023-02-09 17:41 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 01/11] bpf: Migrate release_on_unlock logic to non-owning ref semantics Dave Marchevsky
2023-02-10 13:24 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2023-02-10 17:13 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-02-09 17:41 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 02/11] bpf: Improve bpf_reg_state space usage for non-owning ref lock Dave Marchevsky
2023-02-09 17:41 ` Dave Marchevsky [this message]
2023-02-09 17:41 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 04/11] bpf: Add basic bpf_rb_{root,node} support Dave Marchevsky
2023-02-10 14:18 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2023-02-09 17:41 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 05/11] bpf: Add bpf_rbtree_{add,remove,first} kfuncs Dave Marchevsky
2023-02-09 17:41 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 06/11] bpf: Add support for bpf_rb_root and bpf_rb_node in kfunc args Dave Marchevsky
2023-02-09 17:41 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 07/11] bpf: Add callback validation to kfunc verifier logic Dave Marchevsky
2023-02-09 17:41 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 08/11] bpf: Special verifier handling for bpf_rbtree_{remove, first} Dave Marchevsky
2023-02-10 3:11 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-02-10 8:22 ` Dave Marchevsky
2023-02-10 17:30 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-02-10 14:15 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2023-02-10 13:55 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2023-02-10 17:21 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-02-10 18:03 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2023-02-10 18:58 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-02-10 19:38 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2023-02-10 20:01 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-02-10 19:01 ` Dave Marchevsky
2023-02-09 17:41 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 09/11] bpf: Add bpf_rbtree_{add,remove,first} decls to bpf_experimental.h Dave Marchevsky
2023-02-09 17:41 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 10/11] selftests/bpf: Add rbtree selftests Dave Marchevsky
2023-02-10 2:52 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-02-09 17:41 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 11/11] bpf, documentation: Add graph documentation for non-owning refs Dave Marchevsky
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=20230209174144.3280955-4-davemarchevsky@fb.com \
--to=davemarchevsky@fb.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=tj@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox