From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (lindbergh.monkeyblade.net [23.128.96.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD7D262B for ; Wed, 6 Sep 2023 02:29:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pf1-x42e.google.com (mail-pf1-x42e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42e]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 785B7132 for ; Tue, 5 Sep 2023 19:29:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-x42e.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-68a3ced3ec6so2640382b3a.1 for ; Tue, 05 Sep 2023 19:29:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1693967378; x=1694572178; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=vidjzallWCqGNJ4gQFjA4ceb3YWqlWEG95rOsPPmbHQ=; b=iXK+Z2+ZWqVH9vUyecIwdoDhMWf7WSdUgt++BTVCu1nNk5bZTfWCzu45en+6rwpsKz v8JrxovfdQWx4SLJuc0ZsCpqg6DK6/uZ0Nsy8OTIvBrsLLZGqS46cmdbTpCOWf7hLl0E 0QbERsl0XVNrOSfNczcPQe8DwnvN3gbycGbqGzDo082JXnO2h01QXxY/9tBf8al0r4jP 21dpVu9xTWMoJHebfZNLaOyXBR1RPdcXoFUrcXq4iZH9z28UmeAF7W9JDeukjgTg9Cx4 583ysmzCf19MguNGXuPu0KaIhh7NnF4L7gab/XUt9H0jMx/ySlMgEEa7dLOexZjlHxE9 St2w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1693967378; x=1694572178; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=vidjzallWCqGNJ4gQFjA4ceb3YWqlWEG95rOsPPmbHQ=; b=DQ+8rMWxMBHUgnE2Dj9rRVWsiWyETS69Eftwx5R8R26DqZH5o6CXrNOMKLJIet8R1r mVE3QywASWIwWoHehxIOYCNR/J1xxKith+zSNW4oK4WCkFD3xHYaY990hk2AdUI5qUaH Kqj+8Uh7J5BwDjEIxPEe3jhc5RUfTORkrPUwtWitvRvqJ3rrGO3n4luNDJ6hDIfzNl7q ea3HIkEttzrc2pnse4yEE95SjqS1tn1qR6c8EddMawUYTM1FBvOOgkkz4PHXGmL5Wv3t UEkfE4BgQE426z+g5D2VmVzCPFjeLbnca5sGtxvGkjrFPq4MnKZsgWlgaGg32AmDg9cf kWAg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwgQGCeRNy3+Nahu1fbjarrLUMxuH97HLbe4NV/+WQHaDz8uLbi /Um6Rysc2LzUUuzCascM/TA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFEWZ6d96FwJRyrCr+7/M5nTc+C1UkIc7V398IE+Cc+RMjmQ2FoAIa2z8CZEo9/IWUBXV7MLg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a20:1605:b0:14d:7511:1c2 with SMTP id l5-20020a056a20160500b0014d751101c2mr18908625pzj.55.1693967377884; Tue, 05 Sep 2023 19:29:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.22.67.252] ([122.11.166.8]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t23-20020a1709028c9700b001bdb85291casm9948854plo.208.2023.09.05.19.29.35 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 05 Sep 2023 19:29:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <66bc25c8-17ca-c456-d9c3-a9522c0aafdf@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2023 10:29:34 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.15.0 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next v4 3/4] selftests/bpf: Correct map_fd to data_fd in tailcalls Content-Language: en-US To: Maciej Fijalkowski Cc: ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org, song@kernel.org, iii@linux.ibm.com, jakub@cloudflare.com, bpf@vger.kernel.org References: <20230903151448.61696-1-hffilwlqm@gmail.com> <20230903151448.61696-4-hffilwlqm@gmail.com> From: Leon Hwang In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM, HK_RANDOM_FROM,NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lindbergh.monkeyblade.net On 6/9/23 03:22, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote: > On Sun, Sep 03, 2023 at 11:14:47PM +0800, Leon Hwang wrote: >> Get and check data_fd. It should not to check map_fd again. >> >> Fixes: 79d49ba048ec ("bpf, testing: Add various tail call test cases") >> Fixes: 3b0379111197 ("selftests/bpf: Add tailcall_bpf2bpf tests") >> Fixes: 5e0b0a4c52d3 ("selftests/bpf: Test tail call counting with bpf2bpf and data on stack") >> Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang > > This could be pulled out of this RFC set and sent separately to bpf tree, > given that Ilya is taking a look at addressing s390 jit. Yeah, I'll do it. > >> --- >> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tailcalls.c | 12 ++++++------ >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tailcalls.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tailcalls.c >> index 58fe2c586ed76..b20d7f77a5bce 100644 >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tailcalls.c >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tailcalls.c >> @@ -274,7 +274,7 @@ static void test_tailcall_count(const char *which) >> return; >> >> data_fd = bpf_map__fd(data_map); >> - if (CHECK_FAIL(map_fd < 0)) >> + if (CHECK_FAIL(data_fd < 0)) >> return; >> >> i = 0; >> @@ -355,7 +355,7 @@ static void test_tailcall_4(void) >> return; >> >> data_fd = bpf_map__fd(data_map); >> - if (CHECK_FAIL(map_fd < 0)) >> + if (CHECK_FAIL(data_fd < 0)) >> return; >> >> for (i = 0; i < bpf_map__max_entries(prog_array); i++) { >> @@ -445,7 +445,7 @@ static void test_tailcall_5(void) >> return; >> >> data_fd = bpf_map__fd(data_map); >> - if (CHECK_FAIL(map_fd < 0)) >> + if (CHECK_FAIL(data_fd < 0)) >> return; > > shouldn't this be 'goto out' ? applies to the rest of the code i believe. Good point. I'll correct some other 'return' to 'goto out' meanwhile. Thanks, Leon > >> >> for (i = 0; i < bpf_map__max_entries(prog_array); i++) { >> @@ -634,7 +634,7 @@ static void test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_2(void) >> return; >> >> data_fd = bpf_map__fd(data_map); >> - if (CHECK_FAIL(map_fd < 0)) >> + if (CHECK_FAIL(data_fd < 0)) >> return; >> >> i = 0; >> @@ -808,7 +808,7 @@ static void test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_4(bool noise) >> return; >> >> data_fd = bpf_map__fd(data_map); >> - if (CHECK_FAIL(map_fd < 0)) >> + if (CHECK_FAIL(data_fd < 0)) >> return; >> >> i = 0; >> @@ -872,7 +872,7 @@ static void test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_6(void) >> ASSERT_EQ(topts.retval, 0, "tailcall retval"); >> >> data_fd = bpf_map__fd(obj->maps.bss); >> - if (!ASSERT_GE(map_fd, 0, "bss map fd")) >> + if (!ASSERT_GE(data_fd, 0, "bss map fd")) >> goto out; >> >> i = 0; >> -- >> 2.41.0 >>