From: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
To: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>,
Amery Hung <ameryhung@gmail.com>,
kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next 3/6] selftests/test: test gen_prologue and gen_epilogue
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 13:48:38 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b9fc529dbe218419820f1055fed6567e2290201c.camel@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240813184943.3759630-4-martin.lau@linux.dev>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1978 bytes --]
Hi Martin,
Please note that after changes for struct_ops map autoload by libbpf,
test_loader could be use to test struct_ops related changes.
Also, test_loader now supports __xlated macro which allows to verify
rewrites applied by verifier.
For example, the sample below works:
struct st_ops_args;
struct bpf_testmod_st_ops {
int (*test_prologue)(struct st_ops_args *args);
int (*test_epilogue)(struct st_ops_args *args);
int (*test_pro_epilogue)(struct st_ops_args *args);
struct module *owner;
};
__success
__xlated("0: *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = r1")
__xlated("1: r0 = 0")
__xlated("2: r1 = *(u64 *)(r10 -8)")
__xlated("3: r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 +0)")
__xlated("4: r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +0)")
__xlated("5: w6 += 10000")
__xlated("6: *(u32 *)(r1 +0) = r6")
__xlated("7: r6 = r1")
__xlated("8: call kernel-function")
__xlated("9: r1 = r6")
__xlated("10: call kernel-function")
__xlated("11: w0 *= 2")
__xlated("12: exit")
SEC("struct_ops/test_epilogue")
__naked int test_epilogue(void)
{
asm volatile (
"r0 = 0;"
"exit;"
::: __clobber_all);
}
SEC(".struct_ops.link")
struct bpf_testmod_st_ops st_ops = {
.test_epilogue = (void *)test_epilogue,
};
(Complete example is in the attachment).
test_loader based tests can also trigger program execution via __retval() macro.
The only (minor) shortcoming that I see, is that test_loader would
load/unload st_ops map multiple times because of the following
interaction:
- test_loader assumes that each bpf program defines a test;
- test_loader re-creates all maps before each test;
- libbpf struct_ops autocreate logic marks all programs referenced
from struct_ops map as autoloaded.
I think that writing tests this way is easier to follow,
compared to arithmetic manipulations done currently.
What do you think?
Thanks,
Eduard
[-- Attachment #2: struct_ops-test_loader-example.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 2395 bytes --]
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/struct_ops_epilogue.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/struct_ops_epilogue.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..02825d9107ac
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/struct_ops_epilogue.c
@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
+
+#include <test_progs.h>
+#include "struct_ops_epilogue.skel.h"
+
+void test_struct_ops_epilogue(void)
+{
+ RUN_TESTS(struct_ops_epilogue);
+}
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_epilogue.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_epilogue.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..8702c9375023
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_epilogue.c
@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+#include <linux/bpf.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
+#include "bpf_misc.h"
+
+char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
+
+struct st_ops_args {
+ int a;
+};
+
+struct bpf_testmod_st_ops {
+ int (*test_prologue)(struct st_ops_args *args);
+ int (*test_epilogue)(struct st_ops_args *args);
+ int (*test_pro_epilogue)(struct st_ops_args *args);
+ struct module *owner;
+};
+
+__success
+__xlated("0: *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = r1")
+__xlated("1: r0 = 0")
+__xlated("2: r1 = *(u64 *)(r10 -8)")
+__xlated("3: r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 +0)")
+__xlated("4: r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +0)")
+__xlated("5: w6 += 10000")
+__xlated("6: *(u32 *)(r1 +0) = r6")
+__xlated("7: r6 = r1")
+__xlated("8: call kernel-function")
+__xlated("9: r1 = r6")
+__xlated("10: call kernel-function")
+__xlated("11: w0 *= 2")
+__xlated("12: exit")
+SEC("struct_ops/test_epilogue")
+__naked int test_epilogue(void)
+{
+ asm volatile (
+ "r0 = 0;"
+ "exit;"
+ ::: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+__success
+__xlated("0: r6 = *(u64 *)(r1 +0)")
+__xlated("1: r7 = *(u32 *)(r6 +0)")
+__xlated("2: w7 += 1000")
+__xlated("3: *(u32 *)(r6 +0) = r7")
+__xlated("4: r7 = r1")
+__xlated("5: r1 = r6")
+__xlated("6: call kernel-function")
+__xlated("7: r1 = r6")
+__xlated("8: call kernel-function")
+__xlated("9: r1 = r7")
+__xlated("10: r0 = 0")
+__xlated("11: exit")
+SEC("struct_ops/test_prologue")
+__naked int test_prologue(void)
+{
+ asm volatile (
+ "r0 = 0;"
+ "exit;"
+ ::: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+SEC(".struct_ops.link")
+struct bpf_testmod_st_ops st_ops = {
+ .test_epilogue = (void *)test_epilogue,
+ .test_prologue = (void *)test_prologue,
+};
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-08-14 20:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-08-13 18:49 [RFC PATCH bpf-next 0/6] bpf: Add gen_epilogue and allow kfunc call in pro/epilogue Martin KaFai Lau
2024-08-13 18:49 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 1/6] bpf: Add gen_epilogue to bpf_verifier_ops Martin KaFai Lau
2024-08-14 20:56 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-08-15 22:14 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2024-08-17 22:25 ` Amery Hung
2024-08-13 18:49 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 2/6] bpf: Export bpf_base_func_proto Martin KaFai Lau
2024-08-13 18:49 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 3/6] selftests/test: test gen_prologue and gen_epilogue Martin KaFai Lau
2024-08-14 20:48 ` Eduard Zingerman [this message]
2024-08-15 23:41 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2024-08-16 0:23 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-08-16 1:50 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-08-16 17:27 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2024-08-16 20:27 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-08-19 22:30 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2024-08-13 18:49 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 4/6] bpf: Add module parameter to " Martin KaFai Lau
2024-08-13 18:49 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 5/6] bpf: Allow pro/epilogue to call kfunc Martin KaFai Lau
2024-08-14 22:17 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-08-15 23:47 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2024-08-13 18:49 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 6/6] selftests/bpf: Add kfunc call test in gen_prologue and gen_epilogue Martin KaFai Lau
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=b9fc529dbe218419820f1055fed6567e2290201c.camel@gmail.com \
--to=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=ameryhung@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--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