Netdev List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org
To: a.s.protopopov@gmail.com,bpf@vger.kernel.org,linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,netdev@vger.kernel.org,ast@kernel.org,daniel@iogearbox.net,andrii@kernel.org,eddyz87@gmail.com,memxor@gmail.com,kpsingh@kernel.org,matt@bobrowski.net,john.fastabend@gmail.com,brauner@kernel.org,paul@paul-moore.com,torvalds@linux-foundation.org,edumazet@google.com,kuba@kernel.org,pabeni@redhat.com
Cc: a.s.protopopov@gmail.com,ast@kernel.org,andrii@kernel.org,daniel@iogearbox.net,martin.lau@kernel.org,eddyz87@gmail.com,yonghong.song@linux.dev,mason@kernel.org,ihor.solodrai@linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 6/7] selftests/bpf: Add tests for the generic netlink BPF hook
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2026 12:07:11 +0000 (UTC)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8872f8c265628c401291f2921919eb96e1169eef2a4e5d0b1d8dfb5e80bced6a@mail.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260831110934.241898-7-a.s.protopopov@gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5286 bytes --]

> Add a few tests for the new generic netlink BPF hook.
> Policies only apply themselves to the "nlctrl" family.
> The following tests are being added:
>   * doit: allow or deny CTRL_CMD_GETFAMILY
>   * dump: allow or deny CTRL_CMD_GETPOLICY, nlmsg_flags |= NLM_F_DUMP
>   * nlmsg_flags: allow or deny a command based on nlmsg_flags
>   * other_family: check that other families still pass

The enumeration lists four subtests but the patch registers five. The
"netns" subtest is missing from this list:

    if (test__start_subtest("doit"))          test_doit(skel, fd);
    if (test__start_subtest("dump"))          test_dump(skel, fd);
    if (test__start_subtest("nlmsg_flags"))   test_nlmsg_flags(skel, fd);
    if (test__start_subtest("other_family"))  test_other_family(skel, fd, other_id);
    if (test__start_subtest("netns"))         test_netns(skel, fd);

The netns subtest is the only one exercising the net argument of
bpf_lsm_genl_family_rcv_msg(), and it introduces target_netns_inum plus
a filter in the BPF program, netns_new()/open_netns(), a second socket,
and the netns_inum() helper - roughly 45 of the 242 added lines. Since
the netns filtering path is the least obvious part of the hook contract,
would it make sense to add a fifth bullet, for example "* netns: deny a
command only inside a target netns, allow it elsewhere"?

> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/config b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/config
> index 08c6e8a4e..6ca0b083a 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/config
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/config
> @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE=y
>  CONFIG_FPROBE=y
>  CONFIG_FUNCTION_TRACER=y

[ ... ]

> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/genl_lsm.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/genl_lsm.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000..9f866c4c6
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/genl_lsm.c

[ ... ]

> +static void test_nlmsg_flags(struct genl_lsm *skel, int fd)
> +{
> +	int err;
> +
> +	/* ensure denying works */
> +	skel->bss->target_cmd = CTRL_CMD_GETFAMILY;
> +	skel->bss->target_flags = NLM_F_REQUEST | NLM_F_DUMP;
> +	skel->bss->allow = false;
> +
> +	err = nlctrl_request(fd, CTRL_CMD_GETFAMILY, false);
> +	ASSERT_OK(err, "doit_flags_not_matched");
> +
> +	err = nlctrl_request(fd, CTRL_CMD_GETFAMILY, true);
> +	ASSERT_EQ(err, -TEST_ERRNO, "deny_dump_flags");
> +
> +	/* now, the other way around */
> +	skel->bss->target_flags = NLM_F_REQUEST;
> +
> +	err = nlctrl_request(fd, CTRL_CMD_GETFAMILY, true);
> +	ASSERT_OK(err, "doit_flags_not_matched");
> +
> +	err = nlctrl_request(fd, CTRL_CMD_GETFAMILY, false);
> +	ASSERT_EQ(err, -TEST_ERRNO, "deny_dump_flags");
> +}

The second half reuses the assertion tags from the first half, but they
name the opposite case. The dump request gets "doit_flags_not_matched"
and the doit request gets "deny_dump_flags". The test logic is correct
but when test_progs prints only the tag and __func__, a CI failure
reporting "genl_lsm:FAIL:deny_dump_flags" cannot be attributed to either
of the two assertions with that name, and whichever one it is, the tag
names the wrong netlink operation. Would four distinct tags - for example
"deny_dump_flags_matched", "allow_doit_flags_unmatched",
"allow_dump_flags_unmatched", "deny_doit_flags_matched" - remove the
ambiguity?

[ ... ]

> +void test_genl_lsm(void)
> +{
> +	struct genl_lsm *skel = NULL;
> +	int fd = -1;
> +	int err, other_id;
> +
> +	skel = genl_lsm__open_and_load();
> +	if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "genl_lsm__open_and_load"))
> +		return;
> +
> +	fd = genl_open(0);
> +	if (!ASSERT_OK_FD(fd, "genl_open"))
> +		goto cleanup;
> +
> +	/* do this before attaching our hook, just in case */
> +	other_id = genl_resolve_family(fd, OTHER_FAMILY_NAME);
> +	if (other_id == -ENOENT) {
> +		test__skip();
> +		goto cleanup;
> +	}

A subsystem pattern flags this as potentially concerning: when
CONFIG_ETHTOOL_NETLINK is absent, genl_resolve_family() returns -ENOENT
and the test skips with no printed reason. A reader of the TAP output
sees "#N genl_lsm:SKIP" with nothing indicating the missing prerequisite
was the ethtool genl family, so a silently-skipped test looks identical
to a deliberately-disabled one. All five subtests are skipped this way,
including the four (doit, dump, nlmsg_flags, netns) that do not need
ethtool - only test_other_family() consumes other_id.

This pattern is common in bpf selftests (e.g. aggregate_ret.c:52,
arena_spin_lock.c:57 and :66 all do exactly this), and the config hunk
in this same patch adds CONFIG_ETHTOOL_NETLINK so the skip path should
not be taken in a properly configured CI run. Would a one-line printf
plus optionally deferring the ethtool resolution into test_other_family()
so the other four subtests still run be worth addressing?

[ ... ]

> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/genl_lsm.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/genl_lsm.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000..c4d8b4d23
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/genl_lsm.c

[ ... ]


---
AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug.
See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md

CI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/33386073074

  reply	other threads:[~2026-08-31 12:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-08-31 11:09 [PATCH bpf-next 0/7] Add new way to add BPF LSM hooks Anton Protopopov
2026-08-31 11:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/7] bpf: Allow BPF LSM programs to attach to more hooks Anton Protopopov
2026-08-31 11:50   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-31 12:48     ` Anton Protopopov
2026-08-31 22:42   ` Paul Moore
2026-09-01 13:36     ` Anton Protopopov
2026-09-01 22:15       ` Paul Moore
2026-09-02 15:31         ` Anton Protopopov
2026-09-02 19:43           ` Paul Moore
2026-08-31 11:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/7] net, bpf: Add a generic netlink hook on msg_rcv Anton Protopopov
2026-08-31 12:07   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-31 13:22     ` Anton Protopopov
2026-08-31 11:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next 3/7] net, bpf: Add bpf hooks for ethtool control path Anton Protopopov
2026-08-31 11:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next 4/7] selftests/bpf: Extract some helpers from tests to the netlink library Anton Protopopov
2026-08-31 11:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next 5/7] selftests/bpf: Add netdevsim helper library Anton Protopopov
2026-08-31 12:07   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-31 12:55     ` Anton Protopopov
2026-08-31 11:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next 6/7] selftests/bpf: Add tests for the generic netlink BPF hook Anton Protopopov
2026-08-31 12:07   ` bot+bpf-ci [this message]
2026-08-31 13:01     ` Anton Protopopov
2026-08-31 11:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next 7/7] selftests/bpf: Add tests for BPF ethtool hooks Anton Protopopov
2026-08-31 12:07   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-31 13:12     ` Anton Protopopov
2026-08-31 22:34 ` [PATCH bpf-next 0/7] Add new way to add BPF LSM hooks Jakub Kicinski
2026-09-01 12:29   ` Anton Protopopov
2026-09-02  0:49     ` Jakub Kicinski
2026-09-02 15:11       ` Anton Protopopov
2026-09-02 18:07 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-02 19:31   ` Anton Protopopov
2026-09-03 12:16     ` Justin Suess
2026-09-03 13:23       ` Anton Protopopov

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=8872f8c265628c401291f2921919eb96e1169eef2a4e5d0b1d8dfb5e80bced6a@mail.kernel.org \
    --to=bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org \
    --cc=a.s.protopopov@gmail.com \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=brauner@kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=ihor.solodrai@linux.dev \
    --cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
    --cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
    --cc=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
    --cc=mason@kernel.org \
    --cc=matt@bobrowski.net \
    --cc=memxor@gmail.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
    --cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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