From: Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com>
To: Leon Hwang <hffilwlqm@gmail.com>
Cc: <ast@kernel.org>, <daniel@iogearbox.net>, <andrii@kernel.org>,
<song@kernel.org>, <iii@linux.ibm.com>, <jakub@cloudflare.com>,
<bpf@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next v4 3/4] selftests/bpf: Correct map_fd to data_fd in tailcalls
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2023 21:22:35 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZPd/+49iX6DrSyCE@boxer> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230903151448.61696-4-hffilwlqm@gmail.com>
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 <hffilwlqm@gmail.com>
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.
> ---
> 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.
>
> 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
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-09-05 19:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-09-03 15:14 [RFC PATCH bpf-next v4 0/4] bpf, x64: Fix tailcall infinite loop Leon Hwang
2023-09-03 15:14 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next v4 1/4] bpf, x64: Comment tail_call_cnt initialisation Leon Hwang
2023-09-05 19:26 ` Maciej Fijalkowski
2023-09-06 2:23 ` Leon Hwang
2023-09-03 15:14 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next v4 2/4] bpf, x64: Fix tailcall infinite loop Leon Hwang
2023-09-06 20:50 ` Maciej Fijalkowski
2023-09-03 15:14 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next v4 3/4] selftests/bpf: Correct map_fd to data_fd in tailcalls Leon Hwang
2023-09-05 19:22 ` Maciej Fijalkowski [this message]
2023-09-06 2:29 ` Leon Hwang
2023-09-03 15:14 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next v4 4/4] selftests/bpf: Add testcases for tailcall infinite loop fixing Leon Hwang
2023-09-06 21:18 ` Maciej Fijalkowski
2023-09-07 3:53 ` Leon Hwang
2023-09-04 13:10 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next v4 0/4] bpf, x64: Fix tailcall infinite loop Ilya Leoshkevich
2023-09-04 15:15 ` Leon Hwang
2023-09-06 0:57 ` Ilya Leoshkevich
2023-09-06 2:39 ` Leon Hwang
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=ZPd/+49iX6DrSyCE@boxer \
--to=maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=hffilwlqm@gmail.com \
--cc=iii@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=jakub@cloudflare.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