From: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org,
martin.lau@linux.dev, song@kernel.org, yhs@meta.com,
john.fastabend@gmail.com, kpsingh@kernel.org, sdf@google.com,
haoluo@google.com, jolsa@kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com,
corbet@lwn.net, hch@infradead.org, acme@kernel.org,
alan.maguire@oracle.com
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v3 4/4] selftests/bpf: Add testcase for static kfunc with unused arg
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2023 11:30:16 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230201173016.342758-5-void@manifault.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230201173016.342758-1-void@manifault.com>
kfuncs are allowed to be static, or not use one or more of their
arguments. For example, bpf_xdp_metadata_rx_hash() in net/core/xdp.c is
meant to be implemented by drivers, with the default implementation just
returning -EOPNOTSUPP. As described in [0], such kfuncs can have their
arguments elided, which can cause BTF encoding to be skipped. The new
__bpf_kfunc macro should address this, and this patch adds a selftest
which verifies that a static kfunc with at least one unused argument can
still be encoded and invoked by a BPF program.
Signed-off-by: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
---
net/bpf/test_run.c | 6 ++++++
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c | 1 +
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/kfunc_call_test.c | 11 +++++++++++
3 files changed, 18 insertions(+)
diff --git a/net/bpf/test_run.c b/net/bpf/test_run.c
index af9827c4b351..e6f773d12045 100644
--- a/net/bpf/test_run.c
+++ b/net/bpf/test_run.c
@@ -741,6 +741,11 @@ __bpf_kfunc void bpf_kfunc_call_test_destructive(void)
{
}
+__bpf_kfunc static u32 bpf_kfunc_call_test_static_unused_arg(u32 arg, u32 unused)
+{
+ return arg;
+}
+
__diag_pop();
BTF_SET8_START(bpf_test_modify_return_ids)
@@ -779,6 +784,7 @@ BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test_mem_len_fail1)
BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test_mem_len_fail2)
BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test_ref, KF_TRUSTED_ARGS)
BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test_destructive, KF_DESTRUCTIVE)
+BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test_static_unused_arg)
BTF_SET8_END(test_sk_check_kfunc_ids)
static void *bpf_test_init(const union bpf_attr *kattr, u32 user_size,
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c
index bb4cd82a788a..a543742cd7bd 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c
@@ -77,6 +77,7 @@ static struct kfunc_test_params kfunc_tests[] = {
TC_TEST(kfunc_call_test_get_mem, 42),
SYSCALL_TEST(kfunc_syscall_test, 0),
SYSCALL_NULL_CTX_TEST(kfunc_syscall_test_null, 0),
+ TC_TEST(kfunc_call_test_static_unused_arg, 0),
};
struct syscall_test_args {
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/kfunc_call_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/kfunc_call_test.c
index d91c58d06d38..7daa8f5720b9 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/kfunc_call_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/kfunc_call_test.c
@@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ extern void bpf_kfunc_call_test_mem_len_pass1(void *mem, int len) __ksym;
extern void bpf_kfunc_call_test_mem_len_fail2(__u64 *mem, int len) __ksym;
extern int *bpf_kfunc_call_test_get_rdwr_mem(struct prog_test_ref_kfunc *p, const int rdwr_buf_size) __ksym;
extern int *bpf_kfunc_call_test_get_rdonly_mem(struct prog_test_ref_kfunc *p, const int rdonly_buf_size) __ksym;
+extern u32 bpf_kfunc_call_test_static_unused_arg(u32 arg, u32 unused) __ksym;
SEC("tc")
int kfunc_call_test4(struct __sk_buff *skb)
@@ -181,4 +182,14 @@ int kfunc_call_test_get_mem(struct __sk_buff *skb)
return ret;
}
+SEC("tc")
+int kfunc_call_test_static_unused_arg(struct __sk_buff *skb)
+{
+
+ u32 expected = 5, actual;
+
+ actual = bpf_kfunc_call_test_static_unused_arg(expected, 0xdeadbeef);
+ return actual != expected ? -1 : 0;
+}
+
char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
--
2.39.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-02-01 17:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-02-01 17:30 [PATCH bpf-next v3 0/4] bpf: Add __bpf_kfunc tag for kfunc definitions David Vernet
2023-02-01 17:30 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/4] bpf: Add __bpf_kfunc tag for marking kernel functions as kfuncs David Vernet
2023-02-01 17:30 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 2/4] bpf: Document usage of the new __bpf_kfunc macro David Vernet
2023-02-01 17:30 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 3/4] bpf: Add __bpf_kfunc tag to all kfuncs David Vernet
2023-02-01 17:30 ` David Vernet [this message]
2023-02-01 23:30 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 0/4] bpf: Add __bpf_kfunc tag for kfunc definitions patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
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=20230201173016.342758-5-void@manifault.com \
--to=void@manifault.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=alan.maguire@oracle.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=haoluo@google.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=sdf@google.com \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=yhs@meta.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