From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-179.mta1.migadu.com (out-179.mta1.migadu.com [95.215.58.179]) (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 7B820254AEE for ; Fri, 18 Apr 2025 22:47:26 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.179 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1745016448; cv=none; b=Eo5cGIImwmUhqwGAScgZxWJDuSK88OOVUqqgDgoHB6bneQ1dJw1QbV2Wfm422ghhYobmDsGZ6KJppEot3556fvFdbrz1LB3X/fqTItAfhzZOGq7W7X5ACOl04VMsFvAMQ7meRfdC6XjBHAm19doD6laQd/5tK9AeNtyg1WhQu9c= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1745016448; c=relaxed/simple; bh=HZ8T7J57P/bxP1ziEyHwnHBXTuztbDu/PQoKHAuFkWk=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version; b=qZuz6D4/Ysj2R5IvGvSgr+raVQK6XqURtvPtD5JAh3Ur/ynYeBWXlfiM56rOwbcB5bNEQsz779tiosEgkR5qm5jGi6/B72V2qkX4qGlKE761gYbMOKLIH764sCFxmK/nO0LLrGXAO4hmWwqrNq/tatyhaHvjvOoGQmYSJnlRJWY= 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=qm+ln21L; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.179 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="qm+ln21L" X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1745016444; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=TOV4NH4C8SzaFUvxJ45cIX3wrZfNDYoZ1kAm/yKhHn4=; b=qm+ln21LlCwOA4pUndpfwEq7fbW7Eh0gHs07WRelGmh3ILBgMj6QnW2JmVaaD4henU14Sj 8eGD5Lxdm1KOAwiAI8tKYgfB2gKRwgG5+MKK0ukklQW4CDb7VKIKcNdnNyhX1i4Rv7IfNa oIiBDTpbCxtYgb4EC7XMJqM8i3oWmnA= From: Martin KaFai Lau To: bpf@vger.kernel.org Cc: 'Alexei Starovoitov ' , 'Andrii Nakryiko ' , 'Daniel Borkmann ' , netdev@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com, 'Amery Hung ' Subject: [RFC PATCH bpf-next 06/12] selftests/bpf: Adjust test that does not allow refcounted node in rbtree_remove Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2025 15:46:44 -0700 Message-ID: <20250418224652.105998-7-martin.lau@linux.dev> In-Reply-To: <20250418224652.105998-1-martin.lau@linux.dev> References: <20250418224652.105998-1-martin.lau@linux.dev> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT From: Martin KaFai Lau rbtree_remove now allows refcounted node now. The rbtree_api_remove_unadded_node test needs to be adjusted. First change, it does not expect a verifier's error now. Second change, the test now expects bpf_rbtree_remove(&groot, &m->node) to return NULL. The test uses __retval(0) to ensure this NULL return value. Some of the "only take non-owning..." failure messages are changed also. Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau --- .../testing/selftests/bpf/progs/rbtree_fail.c | 26 ++++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/rbtree_fail.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/rbtree_fail.c index 528122320471..b2e24f018a3f 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/rbtree_fail.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/rbtree_fail.c @@ -69,11 +69,11 @@ long rbtree_api_nolock_first(void *ctx) } SEC("?tc") -__failure __msg("bpf_rbtree_remove can only take non-owning bpf_rb_node pointer") +__retval(0) long rbtree_api_remove_unadded_node(void *ctx) { struct node_data *n, *m; - struct bpf_rb_node *res; + struct bpf_rb_node *res_n, *res_m; n = bpf_obj_new(typeof(*n)); if (!n) @@ -89,18 +89,20 @@ long rbtree_api_remove_unadded_node(void *ctx) bpf_rbtree_add(&groot, &n->node, less); /* This remove should pass verifier */ - res = bpf_rbtree_remove(&groot, &n->node); - n = container_of(res, struct node_data, node); + res_n = bpf_rbtree_remove(&groot, &n->node); /* This remove shouldn't, m isn't in an rbtree */ - res = bpf_rbtree_remove(&groot, &m->node); - m = container_of(res, struct node_data, node); + res_m = bpf_rbtree_remove(&groot, &m->node); bpf_spin_unlock(&glock); - if (n) - bpf_obj_drop(n); - if (m) - bpf_obj_drop(m); + bpf_obj_drop(m); + if (res_n) + bpf_obj_drop(container_of(res_n, struct node_data, node)); + if (res_m) { + bpf_obj_drop(container_of(res_m, struct node_data, node)); + return 2; + } + return 0; } @@ -178,7 +180,7 @@ long rbtree_api_use_unchecked_remove_retval(void *ctx) } SEC("?tc") -__failure __msg("bpf_rbtree_remove can only take non-owning bpf_rb_node pointer") +__failure __msg("bpf_rbtree_remove can only take non-owning or refcounted bpf_rb_node pointer") long rbtree_api_add_release_unlock_escape(void *ctx) { struct node_data *n; @@ -202,7 +204,7 @@ long rbtree_api_add_release_unlock_escape(void *ctx) } SEC("?tc") -__failure __msg("bpf_rbtree_remove can only take non-owning bpf_rb_node pointer") +__failure __msg("bpf_rbtree_remove can only take non-owning or refcounted bpf_rb_node pointer") long rbtree_api_first_release_unlock_escape(void *ctx) { struct bpf_rb_node *res; -- 2.47.1