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,
Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v1 5/8] selftests/bpf: bad_struct_ops test
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:45:53 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240227204556.17524-6-eddyz87@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240227204556.17524-1-eddyz87@gmail.com>
When loading struct_ops programs kernel requires BTF id of the
struct_ops type and member index for attachment point inside that
type. This makes it not possible to have same BPF program used in
struct_ops maps that have different struct_ops type.
Check if libbpf rejects such BPF objects files.
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
---
.../selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c | 24 +++++++++++
.../selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h | 4 ++
.../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bad_struct_ops.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++
.../selftests/bpf/progs/bad_struct_ops.c | 17 ++++++++
4 files changed, 87 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bad_struct_ops.c
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bad_struct_ops.c
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
index 0d8437e05f64..69f5eb9ad546 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
@@ -601,6 +601,29 @@ struct bpf_struct_ops bpf_bpf_testmod_ops = {
.owner = THIS_MODULE,
};
+static int bpf_dummy_reg2(void *kdata)
+{
+ struct bpf_testmod_ops2 *ops = kdata;
+
+ ops->test_1();
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static struct bpf_testmod_ops2 __bpf_testmod_ops2 = {
+ .test_1 = bpf_testmod_test_1,
+};
+
+struct bpf_struct_ops bpf_testmod_ops2 = {
+ .verifier_ops = &bpf_testmod_verifier_ops,
+ .init = bpf_testmod_ops_init,
+ .init_member = bpf_testmod_ops_init_member,
+ .reg = bpf_dummy_reg2,
+ .unreg = bpf_dummy_unreg,
+ .cfi_stubs = &__bpf_testmod_ops2,
+ .name = "bpf_testmod_ops2",
+ .owner = THIS_MODULE,
+};
+
extern int bpf_fentry_test1(int a);
static int bpf_testmod_init(void)
@@ -612,6 +635,7 @@ static int bpf_testmod_init(void)
ret = ret ?: register_btf_kfunc_id_set(BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING, &bpf_testmod_kfunc_set);
ret = ret ?: register_btf_kfunc_id_set(BPF_PROG_TYPE_SYSCALL, &bpf_testmod_kfunc_set);
ret = ret ?: register_bpf_struct_ops(&bpf_bpf_testmod_ops, bpf_testmod_ops);
+ ret = ret ?: register_bpf_struct_ops(&bpf_testmod_ops2, bpf_testmod_ops2);
if (ret < 0)
return ret;
if (bpf_fentry_test1(0) < 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..3183fff7f246 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h
@@ -37,4 +37,8 @@ struct bpf_testmod_ops {
int (*test_maybe_null)(int dummy, struct task_struct *task);
};
+struct bpf_testmod_ops2 {
+ int (*test_1)(void);
+};
+
#endif /* _BPF_TESTMOD_H */
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bad_struct_ops.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bad_struct_ops.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..9c689db4b05b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bad_struct_ops.c
@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+#include <test_progs.h>
+#include "bad_struct_ops.skel.h"
+
+#define EXPECTED_MSG "libbpf: struct_ops reloc"
+
+static libbpf_print_fn_t old_print_cb;
+static bool msg_found;
+
+static int print_cb(enum libbpf_print_level level, const char *fmt, va_list args)
+{
+ old_print_cb(level, fmt, args);
+ if (level == LIBBPF_WARN && strncmp(fmt, EXPECTED_MSG, strlen(EXPECTED_MSG)) == 0)
+ msg_found = true;
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static void test_bad_struct_ops(void)
+{
+ struct bad_struct_ops *skel;
+ int err;
+
+ old_print_cb = libbpf_set_print(print_cb);
+ skel = bad_struct_ops__open_and_load();
+ err = errno;
+ libbpf_set_print(old_print_cb);
+ if (!ASSERT_NULL(skel, "bad_struct_ops__open_and_load"))
+ return;
+
+ ASSERT_EQ(err, EINVAL, "errno should be EINVAL");
+ ASSERT_TRUE(msg_found, "expected message");
+
+ bad_struct_ops__destroy(skel);
+}
+
+void serial_test_bad_struct_ops(void)
+{
+ if (test__start_subtest("test_bad_struct_ops"))
+ test_bad_struct_ops();
+}
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bad_struct_ops.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bad_struct_ops.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..9c103afbfdb1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bad_struct_ops.c
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+#include <vmlinux.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
+#include "../bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h"
+
+char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
+
+SEC("struct_ops/test_1")
+int BPF_PROG(test_1) { return 0; }
+
+SEC(".struct_ops.link")
+struct bpf_testmod_ops testmod_1 = { .test_1 = (void *)test_1 };
+
+SEC(".struct_ops.link")
+struct bpf_testmod_ops2 testmod_2 = { .test_1 = (void *)test_1 };
--
2.43.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-27 20:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 61+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-27 20:45 [PATCH bpf-next v1 0/8] libbpf: type suffixes and autocreate flag for struct_ops maps Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-27 20:45 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 1/8] libbpf: allow version suffixes (___smth) for struct_ops types Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-27 21:47 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2024-02-27 21:49 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-28 16:29 ` David Vernet
2024-02-28 17:28 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-28 17:30 ` David Vernet
2024-02-28 23:21 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-02-28 23:37 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-27 20:45 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 2/8] libbpf: tie struct_ops programs to kernel BTF ids, not to local ids Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-28 7:41 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2024-02-28 17:23 ` David Vernet
2024-02-28 17:40 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-28 17:50 ` David Vernet
2024-02-28 23:28 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-02-28 23:31 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-28 23:34 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-02-27 20:45 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 3/8] libbpf: honor autocreate flag for struct_ops maps Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-28 17:44 ` David Vernet
2024-02-27 20:45 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 4/8] selftests/bpf: test struct_ops map definition with type suffix Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-28 18:03 ` David Vernet
2024-02-27 20:45 ` Eduard Zingerman [this message]
2024-02-28 18:15 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 5/8] selftests/bpf: bad_struct_ops test David Vernet
2024-02-28 20:06 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-28 20:11 ` David Vernet
2024-02-28 23:40 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-02-28 23:44 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-28 23:56 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-02-29 0:06 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-27 20:45 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 6/8] selftests/bpf: test autocreate behavior for struct_ops maps Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-28 18:29 ` David Vernet
2024-02-28 18:34 ` David Vernet
2024-02-28 19:31 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-28 23:43 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-02-28 23:55 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-29 0:02 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-02-29 0:56 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2024-03-01 1:28 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-01 18:03 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-03-01 18:07 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-27 20:45 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 7/8] libbpf: sync progs autoload with maps autocreate " Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-27 22:55 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2024-02-27 23:09 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-27 23:16 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2024-02-27 23:30 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-27 23:40 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2024-02-27 23:43 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-28 0:12 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2024-02-28 0:50 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-28 2:10 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2024-02-28 12:36 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-28 23:55 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-02-29 0:04 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-29 0:14 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-02-29 0:25 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2024-02-29 0:30 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-02-29 0:37 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2024-02-29 0:40 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-27 20:45 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 8/8] selftests/bpf: tests for struct_ops autoload/autocreate toggling Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-28 18:36 ` David Vernet
2024-02-28 20:10 ` Eduard Zingerman
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=20240227204556.17524-6-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=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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox