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,
sinquersw@gmail.com, Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v2 04/15] selftests/bpf: test struct_ops map definition with type suffix
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2024 03:19:09 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240302011920.15302-5-eddyz87@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240302011920.15302-1-eddyz87@gmail.com>
Extend struct_ops_module test case to check if it is possible to use
'___' suffixes for struct_ops type specification.
Acked-by: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
---
.../selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c | 1 +
.../bpf/prog_tests/test_struct_ops_module.c | 33 ++++++++++++++-----
.../selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_module.c | 21 +++++++++++-
3 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
index 098ddd067224..b9ff88e3d463 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
@@ -564,6 +564,7 @@ static int bpf_dummy_reg(void *kdata)
{
struct bpf_testmod_ops *ops = kdata;
+ ops->test_1();
/* Some test cases (ex. struct_ops_maybe_null) may not have test_2
* initialized, so we need to check for NULL.
*/
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 7d6facf46ebb..ee5372c7f2c7 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
@@ -30,11 +30,29 @@ static void check_map_info(struct bpf_map_info *info)
close(fd);
}
+static int attach_ops_and_check(struct struct_ops_module *skel,
+ struct bpf_map *map,
+ int expected_test_2_result)
+{
+ struct bpf_link *link;
+
+ link = bpf_map__attach_struct_ops(map);
+ ASSERT_OK_PTR(link, "attach_test_mod_1");
+ if (!link)
+ return -1;
+
+ /* test_{1,2}() would be called from bpf_dummy_reg() in bpf_testmod.c */
+ ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->test_1_result, 0xdeadbeef, "test_1_result");
+ ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->test_2_result, expected_test_2_result, "test_2_result");
+
+ bpf_link__destroy(link);
+ return 0;
+}
+
static void test_struct_ops_load(void)
{
struct struct_ops_module *skel;
struct bpf_map_info info = {};
- struct bpf_link *link;
int err;
u32 len;
@@ -59,20 +77,17 @@ static void test_struct_ops_load(void)
if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "bpf_map_get_info_by_fd"))
goto cleanup;
- link = bpf_map__attach_struct_ops(skel->maps.testmod_1);
- ASSERT_OK_PTR(link, "attach_test_mod_1");
-
+ check_map_info(&info);
/* 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, "check_shadow_variables");
-
- bpf_link__destroy(link);
-
- check_map_info(&info);
+ if (!attach_ops_and_check(skel, skel->maps.testmod_1, 20))
+ goto cleanup;
+ if (!attach_ops_and_check(skel, skel->maps.testmod_2, 12))
+ goto cleanup;
cleanup:
struct_ops_module__destroy(skel);
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_module.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_module.c
index 25952fa09348..026cabfa7f1f 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_module.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_module.c
@@ -7,12 +7,14 @@
char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
+int test_1_result = 0;
int test_2_result = 0;
SEC("struct_ops/test_1")
int BPF_PROG(test_1)
{
- return 0xdeadbeef;
+ test_1_result = 0xdeadbeef;
+ return 0;
}
SEC("struct_ops/test_2")
@@ -35,3 +37,20 @@ struct bpf_testmod_ops testmod_1 = {
.data = 0x1,
};
+SEC("struct_ops/test_2")
+void BPF_PROG(test_2_v2, int a, int b)
+{
+ test_2_result = a * b;
+}
+
+struct bpf_testmod_ops___v2 {
+ int (*test_1)(void);
+ void (*test_2)(int a, int b);
+ int (*test_maybe_null)(int dummy, struct task_struct *task);
+};
+
+SEC(".struct_ops.link")
+struct bpf_testmod_ops___v2 testmod_2 = {
+ .test_1 = (void *)test_1,
+ .test_2 = (void *)test_2_v2,
+};
--
2.43.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-02 1:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-02 1:19 [PATCH bpf-next v2 00/15] libbpf: type suffixes and autocreate flag for struct_ops maps Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 01/15] libbpf: allow version suffixes (___smth) for struct_ops types Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 02/15] libbpf: tie struct_ops programs to kernel BTF ids, not to local ids Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 03/15] libbpf: honor autocreate flag for struct_ops maps Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` Eduard Zingerman [this message]
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 05/15] selftests/bpf: utility functions to capture libbpf log in test_progs Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 06/15] selftests/bpf: bad_struct_ops test Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 07/15] selftests/bpf: test autocreate behavior for struct_ops maps Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 08/15] libbpf: sync progs autoload with maps autocreate " Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-04 19:13 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 09/15] selftests/bpf: verify struct_ops autoload/autocreate sync Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 10/15] libbpf: replace elf_state->st_ops_* fields with SEC_ST_OPS sec_type Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 11/15] libbpf: struct_ops in SEC("?.struct_ops") and SEC("?.struct_ops.link") Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 12/15] libbpf: rewrite btf datasec names starting from '?' Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 13/15] selftests/bpf: test case for SEC("?.struct_ops") Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 14/15] bpf: allow '?' at the beginning of DATASEC names Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02 1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 15/15] selftests/bpf: test cases for '?' in BTF names 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=20240302011920.15302-5-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=sinquersw@gmail.com \
--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