public inbox for ltp@lists.linux.it
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
To: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: [LTP] [PATCH 0/2] [RFC] BPF testing
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 11:30:47 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190724093047.GC4917@dell5510> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190724080328.16145-1-rpalethorpe@suse.com>

Hi Richie,

> Hello,

> This patch set introduces a very basic test which kicks the tires of the bpf
> system call. It doesn't actually load a eBPF program, I will create another
> test for that. However I have some concerns which I will discuss while doing
> that.
Good start, great.

> There are already extensive BPF tests in the kernel selftests. These appear to
> be quite complex and test a variety of functionality. They also are far less
> structured than LTP's modern tests and are tied to the kernel tree which makes
> using them in QA a pain. There are also some tests in the BCC project, which
> may test the kernel as a byproduct.
Yep, this is true for other tests in kselftest tree.

> So there are a number of options which are not necessarily mutually exclusive:

> 1) Port (some of) the selftests to the LTP.
> 2) Port the LTP library to the selftests.
> 3) Focus the LTP's BPF tests on reproducing specific high impact bugs.

> This patch set copies in the necessary headers so that we have zero external
> dependencies.

> I will also use raw byte code for the program test which is at
> least acceptable for trivial programs. So we do not need BCC or Clang/LLVM
> with eBPF support or matching kernel sources to generate offsets into internal
> structures.
+1

> For the time being atleast my preference would be for (3) while avoiding
> taking on any dependencies to ensure those tests are run by users mostly
> ignorant of BPF, but are still exposed to critical bugs in the BPF stack.
+1

Kind regards,
Petr

  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-07-24  9:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-07-24  8:03 [LTP] [PATCH 0/2] [RFC] BPF testing Richard Palethorpe
2019-07-24  8:03 ` [LTP] [PATCH 1/2] Essential headers for BPF map creation Richard Palethorpe
2019-07-24  9:27   ` Petr Vorel
2019-07-24  9:55     ` Richard Palethorpe
2019-07-24  8:03 ` [LTP] [PATCH 2/2] BPF: Sanity check creating and updating maps Richard Palethorpe
2019-07-24  9:18   ` Petr Vorel
2019-07-24 12:15     ` Richard Palethorpe
2019-07-24  9:30 ` Petr Vorel [this message]
2019-07-25 14:23 ` [LTP] [PATCH 0/2] [RFC] BPF testing Cyril Hrubis
2019-07-29 10:02   ` Richard Palethorpe
2019-07-30 13:44 ` [LTP] [PATCH v2 1/4] BPF: Essential headers for map creation Richard Palethorpe
2019-07-30 13:44   ` [LTP] [PATCH v2 2/4] BPF: Sanity check creating and updating maps Richard Palethorpe
2019-07-30 13:44   ` [LTP] [PATCH v2 3/4] BPF: Essential headers for a basic program Richard Palethorpe
2019-07-30 13:44   ` [LTP] [PATCH v2 4/4] BPF: Sanity check creating a program Richard Palethorpe

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=20190724093047.GC4917@dell5510 \
    --to=pvorel@suse.cz \
    --cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
    /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