From: Kui-Feng Lee <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: [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/3] selftests/bpf: Ensure libbpf skip all-zeros fields of struct_ops maps.
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 14:41:38 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240313214139.685112-3-thinker.li@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240313214139.685112-1-thinker.li@gmail.com>
A new version of a type may have additional fields that do not exist in
older versions. Previously, libbpf would reject struct_ops maps with a new
version containing extra fields when running on a machine with an old
kernel. However, we have updated libbpf to ignore these fields if their
values are all zeros or null in order to provide backward compatibility.
Signed-off-by: Kui-Feng Lee <thinker.li@gmail.com>
---
.../bpf/prog_tests/test_struct_ops_module.c | 47 +++++++++++++++++++
.../selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_module.c | 16 ++++++-
2 files changed, 62 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
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 ee5372c7f2c7..098776d00ab4 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
@@ -93,9 +93,56 @@ static void test_struct_ops_load(void)
struct_ops_module__destroy(skel);
}
+static void test_struct_ops_not_zeroed(void)
+{
+ struct struct_ops_module *skel;
+ int err;
+
+ /* zeroed is 0, and zeroed_op is null */
+ skel = struct_ops_module__open();
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "struct_ops_module_open"))
+ return;
+
+ err = struct_ops_module__load(skel);
+ ASSERT_OK(err, "struct_ops_module_load");
+
+ struct_ops_module__destroy(skel);
+
+ /* zeroed is not 0 */
+ skel = struct_ops_module__open();
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "struct_ops_module_open_not_zeroed"))
+ return;
+
+ /* libbpf should reject the testmod_zeroed since struct
+ * bpf_testmod_ops in the kernel has no "zeroed" field and the
+ * value of "zeroed" is non-zero.
+ */
+ skel->struct_ops.testmod_zeroed->zeroed = 0xdeadbeef;
+ err = struct_ops_module__load(skel);
+ ASSERT_ERR(err, "struct_ops_module_load_not_zeroed");
+
+ struct_ops_module__destroy(skel);
+
+ /* zeroed_op is not null */
+ skel = struct_ops_module__open();
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "struct_ops_module_open_not_zeroed_op"))
+ return;
+
+ /* libbpf should reject the testmod_zeroed since the value of its
+ * "zeroed_op" is not null.
+ */
+ skel->struct_ops.testmod_zeroed->zeroed_op = skel->progs.test_3;
+ err = struct_ops_module__load(skel);
+ ASSERT_ERR(err, "struct_ops_module_load_not_zeroed_op");
+
+ struct_ops_module__destroy(skel);
+}
+
void serial_test_struct_ops_module(void)
{
if (test__start_subtest("test_struct_ops_load"))
test_struct_ops_load();
+ if (test__start_subtest("test_struct_ops_not_zeroed"))
+ test_struct_ops_not_zeroed();
}
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_module.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_module.c
index 026cabfa7f1f..86e1e50c5531 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_module.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_module.c
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ void BPF_PROG(test_2, int a, int b)
test_2_result = a + b;
}
-SEC("struct_ops/test_3")
+SEC("?struct_ops/test_3")
int BPF_PROG(test_3, int a, int b)
{
test_2_result = a + b + 3;
@@ -54,3 +54,17 @@ struct bpf_testmod_ops___v2 testmod_2 = {
.test_1 = (void *)test_1,
.test_2 = (void *)test_2_v2,
};
+
+struct bpf_testmod_ops___zeroed {
+ int (*test_1)(void);
+ void (*test_2)(int a, int b);
+ int (*test_maybe_null)(int dummy, struct task_struct *task);
+ void (*zeroed_op)(int a, int b);
+ int zeroed;
+};
+
+SEC(".struct_ops.link")
+struct bpf_testmod_ops___zeroed testmod_zeroed = {
+ .test_1 = (void *)test_1,
+ .test_2 = (void *)test_2_v2,
+};
--
2.34.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-13 21:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-13 21:41 [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/3] Ignore additional fields in the struct_ops maps in an updated version Kui-Feng Lee
2024-03-13 21:41 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/3] libbpf: Skip zeroed or null fields if not found in the kernel type Kui-Feng Lee
2024-03-13 21:41 ` Kui-Feng Lee [this message]
2024-03-13 21:41 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/3] selftests/bpf: Accept extra arguments if they are not used Kui-Feng Lee
2024-03-14 20:59 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/3] Ignore additional fields in the struct_ops maps in an updated version Andrii Nakryiko
2024-03-15 23:44 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2024-03-18 18:34 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-03-18 21:08 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2024-03-14 21:00 ` 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=20240313214139.685112-3-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