From: thinker.li@gmail.com
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, martin.lau@linux.dev,
song@kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com, andrii@kernel.org
Cc: sinquersw@gmail.com, kuifeng@meta.com,
Kui-Feng Lee <thinker.li@gmail.com>
Subject: [RFC bpf-next v2 3/3] selftests/bpf: Test if shadow variables work.
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 18:08:36 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240214020836.1845354-4-thinker.li@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240214020836.1845354-1-thinker.li@gmail.com>
From: Kui-Feng Lee <thinker.li@gmail.com>
Change the value of fields, including scalar types and function pointers,
and check if the struct_ops map works as expected.
Signed-off-by: Kui-Feng Lee <thinker.li@gmail.com>
---
.../selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c | 6 +++++-
.../selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h | 1 +
.../bpf/prog_tests/test_struct_ops_module.c | 16 ++++++++++++----
.../selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_module.c | 8 ++++++++
4 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
index 66787e99ba1b..96fb0f44a390 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
@@ -539,6 +539,10 @@ static int bpf_testmod_ops_init_member(const struct btf_type *t,
const struct btf_member *member,
void *kdata, const void *udata)
{
+ if (member->offset == offsetof(struct bpf_testmod_ops, data) * 8) {
+ ((struct bpf_testmod_ops *)kdata)->data = ((struct bpf_testmod_ops *)udata)->data;
+ return 1;
+ }
return 0;
}
@@ -559,7 +563,7 @@ static int bpf_dummy_reg(void *kdata)
* initialized, so we need to check for NULL.
*/
if (ops->test_2)
- ops->test_2(4, 3);
+ ops->test_2(4, ops->data);
return 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..428efd65cafd 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h
@@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ struct bpf_testmod_ops {
void (*test_2)(int a, int b);
/* Used to test nullable arguments. */
int (*test_maybe_null)(int dummy, struct task_struct *task);
+ int data;
};
#endif /* _BPF_TESTMOD_H */
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_struct_ops_module.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_struct_ops_module.c
index 8d833f0c7580..68d91b769ca0 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_struct_ops_module.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_struct_ops_module.c
@@ -32,17 +32,20 @@ static void check_map_info(struct bpf_map_info *info)
static void test_struct_ops_load(void)
{
- DECLARE_LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_object_open_opts, opts);
struct struct_ops_module *skel;
struct bpf_map_info info = {};
struct bpf_link *link;
int err;
u32 len;
- skel = struct_ops_module__open_opts(&opts);
+ skel = struct_ops_module__open();
if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "struct_ops_module_open"))
return;
+ skel->struct_ops.testmod_1->data = 13;
+ skel->struct_ops.testmod_1->test_2 = skel->progs.test_3;
+ bpf_program__set_autoload(skel->progs.test_2, false);
+
err = struct_ops_module__load(skel);
if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "struct_ops_module_load"))
goto cleanup;
@@ -56,8 +59,13 @@ static void test_struct_ops_load(void)
link = bpf_map__attach_struct_ops(skel->maps.testmod_1);
ASSERT_OK_PTR(link, "attach_test_mod_1");
- /* test_2() will be called from bpf_dummy_reg() in bpf_testmod.c */
- ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->test_2_result, 7, "test_2_result");
+ /* test_3() will be called from bpf_dummy_reg() in bpf_testmod.c
+ *
+ * In bpf_testmod.c it will pass 4 and 13 (the value of data) to
+ * .test_2. So, the value of test_2_result should be 20 (4 + 13 +
+ * 3).
+ */
+ ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->test_2_result, 20, "test_2_result");
bpf_link__destroy(link);
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_module.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_module.c
index b78746b3cef3..25952fa09348 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_module.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_module.c
@@ -21,9 +21,17 @@ void BPF_PROG(test_2, int a, int b)
test_2_result = a + b;
}
+SEC("struct_ops/test_3")
+int BPF_PROG(test_3, int a, int b)
+{
+ test_2_result = a + b + 3;
+ return a + b + 3;
+}
+
SEC(".struct_ops.link")
struct bpf_testmod_ops testmod_1 = {
.test_1 = (void *)test_1,
.test_2 = (void *)test_2,
+ .data = 0x1,
};
--
2.34.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-14 2:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-14 2:08 [RFC bpf-next v2 0/3] Create shadow variables for struct_ops in skeletons thinker.li
2024-02-14 2:08 ` [RFC bpf-next v2 1/3] libbpf: Create a shadow copy for each struct_ops map if necessary thinker.li
2024-02-15 23:55 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-02-16 2:35 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2024-02-16 16:52 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-02-16 17:12 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2024-02-14 2:08 ` [RFC bpf-next v2 2/3] bpftool: generated shadow variables for struct_ops maps thinker.li
2024-02-14 2:08 ` thinker.li [this message]
2024-02-15 23:50 ` [RFC bpf-next v2 0/3] Create shadow variables for struct_ops in skeletons Andrii Nakryiko
2024-02-16 2:40 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2024-02-16 16:54 ` Andrii Nakryiko
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=20240214020836.1845354-4-thinker.li@gmail.com \
--to=thinker.li@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=kuifeng@meta.com \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=sinquersw@gmail.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox