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 06/15] selftests/bpf: bad_struct_ops test
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2024 03:19:11 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240302011920.15302-7-eddyz87@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240302011920.15302-1-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 | 35 +++++++++++++++++++
.../selftests/bpf/progs/bad_struct_ops.c | 25 +++++++++++++
4 files changed, 88 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 b9ff88e3d463..2de7e80dbb4b 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
@@ -610,6 +610,29 @@ 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)
@@ -621,6 +644,7 @@ 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 971458acfac3..c51c4eae9ed5 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h
@@ -45,4 +45,8 @@ struct bpf_testmod_ops {
int data;
};
+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..9f5dbefa0dd9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bad_struct_ops.c
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+#include <test_progs.h>
+#include "bad_struct_ops.skel.h"
+
+static void invalid_prog_reuse(void)
+{
+ struct bad_struct_ops *skel;
+ char *log = NULL;
+ int err;
+
+ skel = bad_struct_ops__open();
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "bad_struct_ops__open"))
+ return;
+
+ if (start_libbpf_log_capture())
+ goto cleanup;
+
+ err = bad_struct_ops__load(skel);
+ log = stop_libbpf_log_capture();
+ ASSERT_ERR(err, "bad_struct_ops__load should fail");
+ ASSERT_HAS_SUBSTR(log,
+ "struct_ops init_kern testmod_2 func ptr test_1: invalid reuse of prog test_1",
+ "expected init_kern message");
+
+cleanup:
+ free(log);
+ bad_struct_ops__destroy(skel);
+}
+
+void test_bad_struct_ops(void)
+{
+ if (test__start_subtest("invalid_prog_reuse"))
+ invalid_prog_reuse();
+}
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..b7e175cd0af0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bad_struct_ops.c
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+// 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/test_2")
+int BPF_PROG(test_2) { return 0; }
+
+SEC(".struct_ops.link")
+struct bpf_testmod_ops testmod_1 = {
+ .test_1 = (void *)test_1,
+ .test_2 = (void *)test_2
+};
+
+SEC(".struct_ops.link")
+struct bpf_testmod_ops2 testmod_2 = {
+ .test_1 = (void *)test_1
+};
--
2.43.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-02 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 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 04/15] selftests/bpf: test struct_ops map definition with type suffix Eduard Zingerman
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 ` Eduard Zingerman [this message]
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=20240302011920.15302-7-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