From: Kui-Feng Lee <sinquersw@gmail.com>
To: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>,
thinker.li@gmail.com, bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org,
martin.lau@linux.dev, song@kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com,
andrii@kernel.org, drosen@google.com
Cc: kuifeng@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v6 10/10] selftests/bpf: test case for register_bpf_struct_ops().
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2023 21:55:32 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5b3609f3-bc40-4fc3-b591-d124432dc4d9@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <abd76cd234ab2a1185bb9557fa54013264df6a50.camel@gmail.com>
On 10/26/23 13:31, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> On Sat, 2023-10-21 at 22:03 -0700, thinker.li@gmail.com wrote:
>> From: Kui-Feng Lee <thinker.li@gmail.com>
>>
>> Create a new struct_ops type called bpf_testmod_ops within the bpf_testmod
>> module. When a struct_ops object is registered, the bpf_testmod module will
>> invoke test_2 from the module.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kui-Feng Lee <thinker.li@gmail.com>
>
> Hello,
>
> Sorry for the late response, was moving through the patch-set very slowly.
> Please note that CI currently fails for this series [0], reported error is:
>
> testing_helpers.c:13:10: fatal error: 'rcu_tasks_trace_gp.skel.h' file not found
> 13 | #include "rcu_tasks_trace_gp.skel.h"
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thank! I will fix this dependency issue.
>
> I get the same error when try to run tests locally (after full clean).
> On the other hand it looks like `kern_sync_rcu_tasks_trace` changes
> are not really necessary, when I undo these changes but keep changes in:
>
> - .../selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
> - .../selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h
> - .../bpf/prog_tests/test_struct_ops_module.c
> - .../selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_module.c
>
> struct_ops_module/regular_load test still passes.
>
The test will pass even without this change.
But, the test harness may complain by showing warnings.
You may see an additional warning message without this change.
> Regarding assertion:
>
>> + ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->test_2_result, 7, "test_2_result");
>
> Could you please leave a comment explaining why the value is 7?
> I don't understand what invokes 'test_2' but changing it to 8
> forces test to fail, so something does call 'test_2' :)
It is called by bpf_dummy_reg() in bpf_testmod.c.
I will add a comment here.
>
> Also, when running test_maps I get the following error:
>
> libbpf: bpf_map_create_opts has non-zero extra bytes
> map_create_opts(317):FAIL:bpf_map_create() error:Invalid argument (name=hash_of_maps)
It looks like a padding issue. I will check it.
>
> [0] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20231022050335.2579051-11-thinker.li@gmail.com/
> (look for 'Logs for x86_64-gcc / build / build for x86_64 with gcc ')
>
>> ---
>> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile | 2 +
>> .../selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c | 59 +++++++++++++++++++
>> .../selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h | 5 ++
>> .../bpf/prog_tests/test_struct_ops_module.c | 38 ++++++++++++
>> .../selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_module.c | 30 ++++++++++
>> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/testing_helpers.c | 35 +++++++++++
>> 6 files changed, 169 insertions(+)
>> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_struct_ops_module.c
>> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_module.c
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile
>> index caede9b574cb..dd7ff14e1fdf 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile
>> @@ -706,6 +706,8 @@ $(OUTPUT)/uprobe_multi: uprobe_multi.c
>> $(call msg,BINARY,,$@)
>> $(Q)$(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(LDFLAGS) $^ $(LDLIBS) -o $@
>>
>> +$(OUTPUT)/testing_helpers.o: $(OUTPUT)/rcu_tasks_trace_gp.skel.h
>> +
>> EXTRA_CLEAN := $(TEST_CUSTOM_PROGS) $(SCRATCH_DIR) $(HOST_SCRATCH_DIR) \
>> prog_tests/tests.h map_tests/tests.h verifier/tests.h \
>> feature bpftool \
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
>> index cefc5dd72573..f1a20669d884 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
>> @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
>> // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>> /* Copyright (c) 2020 Facebook */
>> +#include <linux/bpf.h>
>> #include <linux/btf.h>
>> #include <linux/btf_ids.h>
>> #include <linux/error-injection.h>
>> @@ -517,11 +518,66 @@ BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test_static_unused_arg)
>> BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test_offset)
>> BTF_SET8_END(bpf_testmod_check_kfunc_ids)
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF_MODULES
>> +
>> +DEFINE_STRUCT_OPS_VALUE_TYPE(bpf_testmod_ops);
>> +
>> +static int bpf_testmod_ops_init(struct btf *btf)
>> +{
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static bool bpf_testmod_ops_is_valid_access(int off, int size,
>> + enum bpf_access_type type,
>> + const struct bpf_prog *prog,
>> + struct bpf_insn_access_aux *info)
>> +{
>> + return bpf_tracing_btf_ctx_access(off, size, type, prog, info);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int bpf_testmod_ops_init_member(const struct btf_type *t,
>> + const struct btf_member *member,
>> + void *kdata, const void *udata)
>> +{
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> static const struct btf_kfunc_id_set bpf_testmod_kfunc_set = {
>> .owner = THIS_MODULE,
>> .set = &bpf_testmod_check_kfunc_ids,
>> };
>>
>> +static const struct bpf_verifier_ops bpf_testmod_verifier_ops = {
>> + .is_valid_access = bpf_testmod_ops_is_valid_access,
>> +};
>> +
>> +static int bpf_dummy_reg(void *kdata)
>> +{
>> + struct bpf_testmod_ops *ops = kdata;
>> + int r;
>> +
>> + BTF_STRUCT_OPS_TYPE_EMIT(bpf_testmod_ops);
>> + r = ops->test_2(4, 3);
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void bpf_dummy_unreg(void *kdata)
>> +{
>> +}
>> +
>> +struct bpf_struct_ops bpf_bpf_testmod_ops = {
>> + .verifier_ops = &bpf_testmod_verifier_ops,
>> + .init = bpf_testmod_ops_init,
>> + .init_member = bpf_testmod_ops_init_member,
>> + .reg = bpf_dummy_reg,
>> + .unreg = bpf_dummy_unreg,
>> + .name = "bpf_testmod_ops",
>> + .owner = THIS_MODULE,
>> +};
>> +
>> +#endif /* CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF_MODULES */
>> +
>> extern int bpf_fentry_test1(int a);
>>
>> static int bpf_testmod_init(void)
>> @@ -532,6 +588,9 @@ static int bpf_testmod_init(void)
>> ret = ret ?: register_btf_kfunc_id_set(BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS, &bpf_testmod_kfunc_set);
>> 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);
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF_MODULES
>> + ret = ret ?: register_bpf_struct_ops(&bpf_bpf_testmod_ops);
>> +#endif
>> 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 f32793efe095..ca5435751c79 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h
>> @@ -28,4 +28,9 @@ struct bpf_iter_testmod_seq {
>> int cnt;
>> };
>>
>> +struct bpf_testmod_ops {
>> + int (*test_1)(void);
>> + int (*test_2)(int a, int b);
>> +};
>> +
>> #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
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..7261fc6c377a
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_struct_ops_module.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>> +/* Copyright (c) 2023 Meta Platforms, Inc. and affiliates. */
>> +#include <test_progs.h>
>> +#include <time.h>
>> +
>> +#include "rcu_tasks_trace_gp.skel.h"
>> +#include "struct_ops_module.skel.h"
>> +
>> +static void test_regular_load(void)
>> +{
>> + struct struct_ops_module *skel;
>> + struct bpf_link *link;
>> + DECLARE_LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_object_open_opts, opts);
>> + int err;
>> +
>> + skel = struct_ops_module__open_opts(&opts);
>> + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "struct_ops_module_open"))
>> + return;
>> + err = struct_ops_module__load(skel);
>> + if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "struct_ops_module_load"))
>> + return;
>> +
>> + link = bpf_map__attach_struct_ops(skel->maps.testmod_1);
>> + ASSERT_OK_PTR(link, "attach_test_mod_1");
>> +
>> + ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->test_2_result, 7, "test_2_result");
>> +
>> + bpf_link__destroy(link);
>> +
>> + struct_ops_module__destroy(skel);
>> +}
>> +
>> +void serial_test_struct_ops_module(void)
>> +{
>> + if (test__start_subtest("regular_load"))
>> + test_regular_load();
>> +}
>> +
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_module.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_module.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..cb305d04342f
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_module.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>> +/* Copyright (c) 2023 Meta Platforms, Inc. and affiliates. */
>> +#include <vmlinux.h>
>> +#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
>> +#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
>> +#include "../bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h"
>> +
>> +char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
>> +
>> +int test_2_result = 0;
>> +
>> +SEC("struct_ops/test_1")
>> +int BPF_PROG(test_1)
>> +{
>> + return 0xdeadbeef;
>> +}
>> +
>> +SEC("struct_ops/test_2")
>> +int BPF_PROG(test_2, int a, int b)
>> +{
>> + test_2_result = a + b;
>> + return a + b;
>> +}
>> +
>> +SEC(".struct_ops.link")
>> +struct bpf_testmod_ops testmod_1 = {
>> + .test_1 = (void *)test_1,
>> + .test_2 = (void *)test_2,
>> +};
>> +
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/testing_helpers.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/testing_helpers.c
>> index 8d994884c7b4..05870cd62458 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/testing_helpers.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/testing_helpers.c
>> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
>> #include "test_progs.h"
>> #include "testing_helpers.h"
>> #include <linux/membarrier.h>
>> +#include "rcu_tasks_trace_gp.skel.h"
>>
>> int parse_num_list(const char *s, bool **num_set, int *num_set_len)
>> {
>> @@ -380,10 +381,44 @@ int load_bpf_testmod(bool verbose)
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> +/* This function will trigger call_rcu_tasks_trace() in the kernel */
>> +static int kern_sync_rcu_tasks_trace(void)
>> +{
>> + struct rcu_tasks_trace_gp *rcu;
>> + time_t start;
>> + long gp_seq;
>> + LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_test_run_opts, opts);
>> +
>> + rcu = rcu_tasks_trace_gp__open_and_load();
>> + if (IS_ERR(rcu))
>> + return -EFAULT;
>> + if (rcu_tasks_trace_gp__attach(rcu))
>> + return -EFAULT;
>> +
>> + gp_seq = READ_ONCE(rcu->bss->gp_seq);
>> +
>> + if (bpf_prog_test_run_opts(bpf_program__fd(rcu->progs.do_call_rcu_tasks_trace),
>> + &opts))
>> + return -EFAULT;
>> + if (opts.retval != 0)
>> + return -EFAULT;
>> +
>> + start = time(NULL);
>> + while ((start + 2) > time(NULL) &&
>> + gp_seq == READ_ONCE(rcu->bss->gp_seq))
>> + sched_yield();
>> +
>> + rcu_tasks_trace_gp__destroy(rcu);
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> /*
>> * Trigger synchronize_rcu() in kernel.
>> */
>> int kern_sync_rcu(void)
>> {
>> + if (kern_sync_rcu_tasks_trace())
>> + return -EFAULT;
>> return syscall(__NR_membarrier, MEMBARRIER_CMD_SHARED, 0, 0);
>> }
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-10-27 4:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-10-22 5:03 [PATCH bpf-next v6 00/10] Registrating struct_ops types from modules thinker.li
2023-10-22 5:03 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 01/10] bpf: refactory struct_ops type initialization to a function thinker.li
2023-10-22 5:03 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 02/10] bpf, net: introduce bpf_struct_ops_desc thinker.li
2023-10-22 5:03 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 03/10] bpf: add struct_ops_tab to btf thinker.li
2023-10-22 5:03 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 04/10] bpf: hold module for bpf_struct_ops_map thinker.li
2023-10-26 21:11 ` Eduard Zingerman
2023-10-27 4:35 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2023-10-22 5:03 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 05/10] bpf: validate value_type thinker.li
2023-10-22 5:03 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 06/10] bpf: pass attached BTF to the bpf_struct_ops subsystem thinker.li
2023-10-22 5:03 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 07/10] bpf, net: switch to dynamic registration thinker.li
2023-10-22 6:46 ` kernel test robot
2023-10-26 21:02 ` Eduard Zingerman
2023-10-27 4:39 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2023-10-27 21:32 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2023-10-27 22:02 ` Eduard Zingerman
2023-10-22 5:03 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 08/10] libbpf: Find correct module BTFs for struct_ops maps and progs thinker.li
2023-10-22 5:03 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 09/10] bpf: export btf_ctx_access to modules thinker.li
2023-10-22 5:03 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 10/10] selftests/bpf: test case for register_bpf_struct_ops() thinker.li
2023-10-22 7:08 ` kernel test robot
2023-10-26 20:31 ` Eduard Zingerman
2023-10-27 4:55 ` Kui-Feng Lee [this message]
2023-10-27 7:09 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2023-10-27 14:13 ` Eduard Zingerman
2023-10-29 2:34 ` Kui-Feng Lee
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=5b3609f3-bc40-4fc3-b591-d124432dc4d9@gmail.com \
--to=sinquersw@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=drosen@google.com \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=kuifeng@meta.com \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=thinker.li@gmail.com \
/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