From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net,
kernel-team@fb.com, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 16/17] selftests/bpf: add iterators tests
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2023 16:14:07 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230306001407.lreqhdvdwitdb63v@MacBook-Pro-6.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEf4BzbrPGPKZSxen4AKc9WDXM0+mutOSR7xeHOtENsFT7JM4g@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Mar 04, 2023 at 03:29:23PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 4, 2023 at 12:39 PM Alexei Starovoitov
> <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 03:50:14PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > +
> > > +#ifdef REAL_TEST
> >
> > Looks like REAL_TEST is never set.
> >
> > and all bpf_printk-s in tests are never executed, because the test are 'load-only'
> > to check the verifier?
> >
> > It looks like all of them can be run (once printks are removed and converted to if-s).
> > That would nicely complement patch 17 runners.
> >
>
> Yes, it's a bit sloppy. I used these also as manual tests during
> development. I did have an ad-hoc test that attaches and triggers
> these programs. And I just manually looked at printk output in
> trace_pipe to confirm it does actually work as expected.
>
> And I felt sorry to drop all that, so just added that REAL_TEST hack
> to make program code simpler (no extra states for those pid
> conditions), it was simpler to debug verification failures, less
> states to consider.
>
> I did try to quickly extend RUN_TESTS with the ability to specify a
> callback that will be called on success, but it's not trivial if we
> want to preserve skeletons, so I abandoned that effort, trying to save
> a bit of time. I still want to have RUN_TESTS with ability to specify
> callback in the form of:
>
> static void on_success(struct <my_skeleton_type> *skel, struct
> bpf_program *prog) {
> ...
> }
>
> but it needs more thought and macro magic (or something else), so I
> postponed it and wrote simple number iterator tests in patch #17.
Sounds good to me. Follow up is fine.
> > It can be a follow up, of course.
>
> yep, let's keep bpf_printks, as they currently serve as consumers of
> variables, preventing the compiler from optimizing loops too much.
> This shouldn't be a problem for verification-only kind of tests. And
> then with RUN_TESTS() additions, we can actually start executing this.
+1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-03-06 0:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-03-02 23:49 [PATCH bpf-next 00/17] BPF open-coded iterators Andrii Nakryiko
2023-03-02 23:49 ` [PATCH bpf-next 01/17] bpf: improve stack slot state printing Andrii Nakryiko
2023-03-02 23:50 ` [PATCH bpf-next 02/17] bpf: improve regsafe() checks for PTR_TO_{MEM,BUF,TP_BUFFER} Andrii Nakryiko
2023-03-02 23:50 ` [PATCH bpf-next 03/17] selftests/bpf: enhance align selftest's expected log matching Andrii Nakryiko
2023-03-02 23:50 ` [PATCH bpf-next 04/17] bpf: honor env->test_state_freq flag in is_state_visited() Andrii Nakryiko
2023-03-02 23:50 ` [PATCH bpf-next 05/17] selftests/bpf: adjust log_fixup's buffer size for proper truncation Andrii Nakryiko
2023-03-02 23:50 ` [PATCH bpf-next 06/17] bpf: clean up visit_insn()'s instruction processing Andrii Nakryiko
2023-03-02 23:50 ` [PATCH bpf-next 07/17] bpf: fix visit_insn()'s detection of BPF_FUNC_timer_set_callback helper Andrii Nakryiko
2023-03-02 23:50 ` [PATCH bpf-next 08/17] bpf: ensure that r0 is marked scratched after any function call Andrii Nakryiko
2023-03-02 23:50 ` [PATCH bpf-next 09/17] bpf: move kfunc_call_arg_meta higher in the file Andrii Nakryiko
2023-03-02 23:50 ` [PATCH bpf-next 10/17] bpf: mark PTR_TO_MEM as non-null register type Andrii Nakryiko
2023-03-02 23:50 ` [PATCH bpf-next 11/17] bpf: generalize dynptr_get_spi to be usable for iters Andrii Nakryiko
2023-03-02 23:50 ` [PATCH bpf-next 12/17] bpf: add support for fixed-size memory pointer returns for kfuncs Andrii Nakryiko
2023-03-02 23:50 ` [PATCH bpf-next 13/17] bpf: add support for open-coded iterator loops Andrii Nakryiko
2023-03-04 20:02 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-03-04 23:27 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-03-05 23:46 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-03-07 21:54 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-03-02 23:50 ` [PATCH bpf-next 14/17] bpf: implement number iterator Andrii Nakryiko
2023-03-04 20:21 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-03-04 23:27 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-03-05 23:49 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-03-02 23:50 ` [PATCH bpf-next 15/17] selftests/bpf: add bpf_for_each(), bpf_for(), and bpf_repeat() macros Andrii Nakryiko
2023-03-04 20:34 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-03-04 23:28 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-03-06 0:12 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-03-07 21:54 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-03-02 23:50 ` [PATCH bpf-next 16/17] selftests/bpf: add iterators tests Andrii Nakryiko
2023-03-04 20:39 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-03-04 23:29 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-03-06 0:14 ` Alexei Starovoitov [this message]
2023-03-04 21:09 ` Jiri Olsa
2023-03-04 23:29 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-03-02 23:50 ` [PATCH bpf-next 17/17] selftests/bpf: add number iterator tests Andrii Nakryiko
2023-03-04 19:30 ` [PATCH bpf-next 00/17] BPF open-coded iterators patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
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=20230306001407.lreqhdvdwitdb63v@MacBook-Pro-6.local \
--to=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii.nakryiko@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=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