From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-185.mta0.migadu.com (out-185.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.185]) (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 67B861C6A3 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 16:47:48 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.185 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712249270; cv=none; b=hmNbU3e68fRaNmkKgFdzqhXW4ot7aATWPiuODK7YkhSffDM9rU8SEhqL4lSI7RvXV/tpyPjuyuECKhMSbw7NQCWnaIpvdMRP9spys9DT40CDSNpBLKksA7Ymb54ILr0Mxf+I9TWykSxampRkbsma6ng8mF8kGyYNiCiiFkPLDfw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712249270; c=relaxed/simple; bh=35dhnO5C4lolhAFARXCTQ/GH9CARWGStS+VDjCNowjU=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=TdMSZjkmbrhYaHpQVqV8acgR6rR7r7KDiQmwVtzmkBbQUuCOwIqgytKTPVMD7+G2gL800by/7TWJqlBwrBjm06GT7B6wn2p8EGnxWhmx1UEve6VpBCQkM7emFfDhk/zq3/GgNt6eXp7u9u0oPw4otXHIFMPfpIu04ALN95LI6BE= 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=U5eqNiut; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.185 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="U5eqNiut" Message-ID: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1712249266; 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=YLsFFBjspbz86ZgjfJxLJ79srNQ7++XFl9ggXA36c5c=; b=U5eqNiut5RA+lTU17uIy71dFwRNdMxRKDW/BygRyUNkl2lQwB4iqyiE8fdVQ+eM5O74Lh4 sQhip9E/bTeVSIsnEyhDNdmWWW8XcSJFd2WiYBaMxoGsF7UAJYXRggj88Dhh0l/1+EZEoM YWv2wfVszMHQTLp0Hs7iQKQZlIz2eYE= Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 09:47:37 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: Verify calling core kfuncs from BPF_PROG_TYPE_SYCALL Content-Language: en-GB To: David Vernet Cc: ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org, martin.lau@linux.dev, song@kernel.org, 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 References: <20240404010308.334604-1-void@manifault.com> <20240404010308.334604-2-void@manifault.com> <36bb0747-bff4-4fad-93ca-dae406f14099@linux.dev> <20240404163316.GA385240@maniforge> X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Yonghong Song In-Reply-To: <20240404163316.GA385240@maniforge> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT On 4/4/24 9:33 AM, David Vernet wrote: > On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 09:04:19AM -0700, Yonghong Song wrote: >> On 4/3/24 6:03 PM, David Vernet wrote: >>> Now that we can call some kfuncs from BPF_PROG_TYPE_SYSCALL progs, let's >>> add some selftests that verify as much. As a bonus, let's also verify >>> that we can't call the progs from raw tracepoints. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: David Vernet >> Ack with some comments below. >> >> Acked-by: Yonghong Song > Thanks for the review. It looks like accidentally replied directly to > me, so I'll re-add the missing cc's. > >>> --- >>> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/cgrp_kfunc.c | 1 + >>> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/task_kfunc.c | 1 + >>> .../selftests/bpf/progs/cgrp_kfunc_common.h | 21 +++++++++++++++++++ >>> .../selftests/bpf/progs/cgrp_kfunc_failure.c | 4 ++++ >>> .../selftests/bpf/progs/cgrp_kfunc_success.c | 4 ++++ >>> .../selftests/bpf/progs/cpumask_common.h | 19 +++++++++++++++++ >>> .../selftests/bpf/progs/cpumask_failure.c | 4 ++++ >>> .../selftests/bpf/progs/cpumask_success.c | 3 +++ >>> .../selftests/bpf/progs/task_kfunc_common.h | 18 ++++++++++++++++ >>> .../selftests/bpf/progs/task_kfunc_failure.c | 4 ++++ >>> .../selftests/bpf/progs/task_kfunc_success.c | 4 ++++ >>> 11 files changed, 83 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/cgrp_kfunc.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/cgrp_kfunc.c >>> index adda85f97058..73f0ec4f4eb7 100644 >>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/cgrp_kfunc.c >>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/cgrp_kfunc.c >>> @@ -102,6 +102,7 @@ void test_cgrp_kfunc(void) >>> run_success_test(success_tests[i]); >>> } >>> + RUN_TESTS(cgrp_kfunc_success); >>> RUN_TESTS(cgrp_kfunc_failure); >>> cleanup: >>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/task_kfunc.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/task_kfunc.c >>> index d4579f735398..3db4c8601b70 100644 >>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/task_kfunc.c >>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/task_kfunc.c >>> @@ -94,5 +94,6 @@ void test_task_kfunc(void) >>> run_success_test(success_tests[i]); >>> } >>> + RUN_TESTS(task_kfunc_success); >>> RUN_TESTS(task_kfunc_failure); >>> } >> The above RUN_TESTS(cgrp_kfunc_success) and RUN_TESTS(task_kfunc_success) >> will do duplicate work for *existing* bpf programs in their respective >> files. I think we still prefer to have cgrp_kfunc_success tests >> in cgrp_kfunc.c to make it easy to cross check. But in order to >> remove duplicate work, one option is to make other non-RUN_TESTS >> programs in those files not auto-loaded and their corresponding >> prog_tests/*.c file need to explicitly enable loading the problem. > Good point, and yes I agree with that approach of not auto-loading > non-RUN_TESTS programs. Considering that we have a __success BTF tag to > say, "this prog should successfully load", it seems odd that we'd also > automatically load and validate progs that _didn't_ specify that tag as > well. At that point, I'm not sure what value the tag is bringing. Also, > that was the expected behavior before RUN_TESTS() was introduced, so it > hopefully shouldn't cause much if any churn. > >> Maybe the current patch is okay even with duplicated work as it >> should not take much time to verify those tiny problems. > IMO it should be fine for now as the overhead for validating and loading > these progs is low, but it'd definitely be good to address this problem > in a follow-up. I don't think it should take too much effort -- AFAICT > we'd just have to mark a test spec as invalid if it didn't have any BTF > test tags. Ideally I'd like to separate that from this patch set, but I > can do it here if folks want. Or you can remove __success from cgrp_kfunc_success.c, cpumask_success.c and task_kfunc_success.c and also remove their corresponding RUN_TESTS(cgrp_kfunc_success) and RUN_TESTS(task_kfunc_success). For example, you do not have RUN_TESTS(cpumask_success) and it is okay. Basically, those expect-to-succeed new programs should be verified already even without RUN_TESTS. > > Thanks, > David