public inbox for netdev@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Slava Imameev <slava.imameev@crowdstrike.com>
To: <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Cc: <andrii@kernel.org>, <ast@kernel.org>, <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
	<daniel@iogearbox.net>, <davem@davemloft.net>,
	<edumazet@google.com>, <haoluo@google.com>, <horms@kernel.org>,
	<john.fastabend@gmail.com>, <jolsa@kernel.org>,
	<kpsingh@kernel.org>, <kuba@kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-open-source@crowdstrike.com>, <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
	<netdev@vger.kernel.org>, <pabeni@redhat.com>, <sdf@fomichev.me>,
	<shuah@kernel.org>, <slava.imameev@crowdstrike.com>,
	<song@kernel.org>, <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add trampolines single and multi-level pointer params test coverage
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2026 09:14:29 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260303221429.8585-1-slava.imameev@crowdstrike.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <24dceff5bf15b6c3e204c69617ac249de497b034.camel@gmail.com>

On Tue, 03 Mar 2026 12:08:44, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> On Tue, 2026-03-03 at 20:54 +1100, Slava Imameev wrote:
> > Single and multi-level pointer params and return value test coverage
> > for BPF trampolines:
> > - fentry/fexit programs covering struct and void double/triple
> >   pointer parameters and return values
> > - verifier context tests covering pointers as parameters, these
> >   tests cover single and double pointers to int, enum 32 and 64,
> >   void, function, and double pointers to struct, triple pointers
> >   for void
> > - verifier context tests covering single and double pointers to
> >   float, to check proper error is returned as pointers to float
> >   are not supported
> > - verifier context tests covering pointers as return values
> > - verifier context tests for lsm to check trusted parameters
> >   handling
> > - verifier context tests covering out-of-bound access after cast
> > - verifier BPF helper tests to validate no change in verifier
> >   behavior
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Slava Imameev <slava.imameev@crowdstrike.com>
> > ---
> 
> Again, I probably miss a point, but with current implementation it
> seems sufficient in verifier_ctx_ptr_param() to add one or two
> tests accessing void** or similar and checking verification log
> to validate that parameter has expected type scalar().
> Why so many tests are necessary?

This reflects my belief in more comprehensive test coverage.

I can certainly reduce the number of tests if this seems excessive,
but I made 90% of the added tests one-liners to keep them maintainable.

These changes add support for multilevel pointers, so double and
triple pointers need to be checked at minimum. I think adding checks
for any new type support is beneficial. I tried to verify a broader
set of conditions that might be broken by future changes. I tried to
make most tests one-liners to facilitate future modification.

      reply	other threads:[~2026-03-03 22:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-03-03  9:54 [PATCH bpf-next v4 0/2] bpf: Add multi-level pointer parameter support for trampolines Slava Imameev
2026-03-03  9:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 1/2] bpf: Support new pointer param types via SCALAR_VALUE " Slava Imameev
2026-03-03 20:05   ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-03-03 21:49     ` Slava Imameev
2026-03-03 22:43       ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-03-04  0:22         ` Slava Imameev
2026-03-04  0:36           ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-03-04  0:38           ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-03-10 12:16             ` Slava Imameev
2026-03-10 18:52               ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-03-11 13:07                 ` Slava Imameev
2026-03-11 16:31                   ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-03-03  9:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add trampolines single and multi-level pointer params test coverage Slava Imameev
2026-03-03 20:08   ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-03-03 22:14     ` Slava Imameev [this message]

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=20260303221429.8585-1-slava.imameev@crowdstrike.com \
    --to=slava.imameev@crowdstrike.com \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=haoluo@google.com \
    --cc=horms@kernel.org \
    --cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
    --cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
    --cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
    --cc=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-open-source@crowdstrike.com \
    --cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
    --cc=sdf@fomichev.me \
    --cc=shuah@kernel.org \
    --cc=song@kernel.org \
    --cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
    /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