From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-180.mta0.migadu.com (out-180.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.180]) (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 411901BC40 for ; Wed, 8 May 2024 23:34:43 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.180 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1715211285; cv=none; b=fOHefOEU80t7diQtF1NaGOXxE+mq/Xr/ndVUmkguVhKT/xQcQ1gvD+vJzqJDFVXUY0+zdPpYmojJJFqXLeT5vHIs9/8fSDxo4HMbi1DDOFG1ddWvwI4HxcNT4xXJHzEn4Sz1+kBzDHUpZfKWQzeRUWxHPl99u1MlQkUBZZY1pFQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1715211285; c=relaxed/simple; bh=k8loCCR03sILU/1AjKhrn+b8TzThdqoqT7fZqTDoBU4=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=p8kanPyaERsL3KJnPrWb4/059vf0azf5NSzJTZxk0E0mon82s704iBStQI8wJ3bD2DQcC42eUDi76sEJNBmQ/n501CFIArteuo/EC0Yv+Nye6DOklIf4mwPtiW+ivU2ajHt29dCXbz5Dtmrq+a7gNm+oZ2el4Az5IOA9iqVNxTk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=OHX37GqU; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.180 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="OHX37GqU" Message-ID: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1715211281; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=DfftXsYN+ssZWNnyTDurDkbKBgJ7bXu3W+ZGYbpmznU=; b=OHX37GqU+j//g77eSiNAmHx0lPS3OimzCC6rbS5g+U1LaGY5eQekZHUX0t4nKToRdOfCQI IhvWSPo+WWzVyTQ7mVohSt5qYy446Pm1K6x9h2KfETvFWMrr72kwqbyjvOFKGeUZxvLZzv giywQujYfpBW2I8pPHQp2IzOxe5uvso= Date: Wed, 8 May 2024 16:34:35 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 4/6] selftests/bpf: test struct_ops with epoll To: Kui-Feng Lee Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, song@kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com, andrii@kernel.org, sinquersw@gmail.com, kuifeng@meta.com References: <20240507055600.2382627-1-thinker.li@gmail.com> <20240507055600.2382627-5-thinker.li@gmail.com> X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Martin KaFai Lau Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <20240507055600.2382627-5-thinker.li@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT On 5/6/24 10:55 PM, Kui-Feng Lee wrote: > Verify whether a user space program is informed through epoll with EPOLLHUP > when a struct_ops object is detached. > > Signed-off-by: Kui-Feng Lee > --- > .../selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c | 13 +++++ > .../bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod_kfunc.h | 1 + > .../bpf/prog_tests/test_struct_ops_module.c | 57 +++++++++++++++++++ > .../selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_detach.c | 31 ++++++++++ > 4 files changed, 102 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_detach.c > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c > index e24a18bfee14..c89a6414c69f 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c > @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ > #include > #include > #include > +#include > #include "bpf_testmod.h" > #include "bpf_testmod_kfunc.h" > > @@ -498,6 +499,9 @@ __bpf_kfunc void bpf_kfunc_call_test_sleepable(void) > { > } > > +static DEFINE_MUTEX(detach_mutex); > +static struct bpf_link *link_to_detach; > + > BTF_KFUNCS_START(bpf_testmod_check_kfunc_ids) > BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_testmod_test_mod_kfunc) > BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test1) > @@ -577,11 +581,20 @@ static int bpf_dummy_reg(void *kdata, struct bpf_link *link) > if (ops->test_2) > ops->test_2(4, ops->data); > > + mutex_lock(&detach_mutex); > + if (!link_to_detach) > + link_to_detach = link; > + mutex_unlock(&detach_mutex); > + > return 0; > } > > static void bpf_dummy_unreg(void *kdata, struct bpf_link *link) > { > + mutex_lock(&detach_mutex); > + if (link == link_to_detach) > + link_to_detach = NULL; > + mutex_unlock(&detach_mutex); The reg/unreg changes should belong to the next patch. > } > > static int bpf_testmod_test_1(void) > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod_kfunc.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod_kfunc.h > index ce5cd763561c..9f9b60880fd3 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod_kfunc.h > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod_kfunc.h > @@ -105,6 +105,7 @@ void bpf_kfunc_call_test_fail1(struct prog_test_fail1 *p); > void bpf_kfunc_call_test_fail2(struct prog_test_fail2 *p); > void bpf_kfunc_call_test_fail3(struct prog_test_fail3 *p); > void bpf_kfunc_call_test_mem_len_fail1(void *mem, int len); > +int bpf_dummy_do_link_detach(void) __ksym; The kfunc is not added in this patch either. > > void bpf_kfunc_common_test(void) __ksym; > #endif /* _BPF_TESTMOD_KFUNC_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 > index bd39586abd5a..f39455b81664 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 > @@ -2,8 +2,12 @@ > /* Copyright (c) 2024 Meta Platforms, Inc. and affiliates. */ > #include > #include > +#include What is needed from network_herlpers.h? > + > +#include > > #include "struct_ops_module.skel.h" > +#include "struct_ops_detach.skel.h" > > static void check_map_info(struct bpf_map_info *info) > { > @@ -174,6 +178,57 @@ static void test_struct_ops_incompatible(void) > struct_ops_module__destroy(skel); > } > > +/* Detach a link from a user space program */ > +static void test_detach_link(void) > +{ > + struct epoll_event ev, events[2]; > + struct struct_ops_detach *skel; > + struct bpf_link *link = NULL; > + int fd, epollfd = -1, nfds; > + int err; > + > + skel = struct_ops_detach__open_and_load(); > + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "struct_ops_detach__open_and_load")) > + return; > + > + link = bpf_map__attach_struct_ops(skel->maps.testmod_do_detach); > + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(link, "attach_struct_ops")) > + goto cleanup; > + > + fd = bpf_link__fd(link); > + if (!ASSERT_GE(fd, 0, "link_fd")) > + goto cleanup; > + > + epollfd = epoll_create1(0); > + if (!ASSERT_GE(epollfd, 0, "epoll_create1")) > + goto cleanup; > + > + ev.events = EPOLLHUP; > + ev.data.fd = fd; > + err = epoll_ctl(epollfd, EPOLL_CTL_ADD, fd, &ev); > + if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "epoll_ctl")) > + goto cleanup; > + > + err = bpf_link__detach(link); > + if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "detach_link")) > + goto cleanup; > + > + /* Wait for EPOLLHUP */ > + nfds = epoll_wait(epollfd, events, 2, 500); > + if (!ASSERT_EQ(nfds, 1, "epoll_wait")) > + goto cleanup; > + > + if (!ASSERT_EQ(events[0].data.fd, fd, "epoll_wait_fd")) > + goto cleanup; > + if (!ASSERT_TRUE(events[0].events & EPOLLHUP, "events[0].events")) > + goto cleanup; > + > +cleanup: > + close(epollfd); Better check epollfd since it is init to -1. There are cases that epollfd is -1 here. > + bpf_link__destroy(link); > + struct_ops_detach__destroy(skel); > +} > + > void serial_test_struct_ops_module(void) > { > if (test__start_subtest("test_struct_ops_load")) > @@ -182,5 +237,7 @@ void serial_test_struct_ops_module(void) > test_struct_ops_not_zeroed(); > if (test__start_subtest("test_struct_ops_incompatible")) > test_struct_ops_incompatible(); > + if (test__start_subtest("test_detach_link")) > + test_detach_link(); > } > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_detach.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_detach.c > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..aeb355b3bea3 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_detach.c > @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > +/* Copyright (c) 2024 Meta Platforms, Inc. and affiliates. */ > +#include > +#include > +#include > +#include "../bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h" > +#include "../bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod_kfunc.h" The _kfunc.h should not be needed in this patch either. > + > +char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL"; > + > +int test_1_result = 0; > +int test_2_result = 0; Are these global vars tested? If not, can the test_1 and test_2 programs be removed? or some of them is not optional? > + > +SEC("struct_ops/test_1") > +int BPF_PROG(test_1) > +{ > + test_1_result = 0xdeadbeef; > + return 0; > +} > + > +SEC("struct_ops/test_2") > +void BPF_PROG(test_2, int a, int b) > +{ > + test_2_result = a + b; > +} > + > +SEC(".struct_ops.link") > +struct bpf_testmod_ops testmod_do_detach = { > + .test_1 = (void *)test_1, > + .test_2 = (void *)test_2, > +};