Re: [PATCH 16/19] selftests/bpf: Add fentry multi func test

Jiri Olsa
2021-06-10T20:29:05Z

On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 10:00:34AM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 7:29 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 10:40:24PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jun 5, 2021 at 4:12 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Adding selftest for fentry multi func test that attaches
> > > > to bpf_fentry_test* functions and checks argument values
> > > > based on the processed function.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
> > > > ---
> > > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/multi_check.h | 52 +++++++++++++++++++
> > > > .../bpf/prog_tests/fentry_multi_test.c | 43 +++++++++++++++
> > > > .../selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_multi_test.c | 18 +++++++
> > > > 3 files changed, 113 insertions(+)
> > > > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/multi_check.h
> > > > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fentry_multi_test.c
> > > > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_multi_test.c
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/multi_check.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/multi_check.h
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 000000000000..36c2a93f9be3
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/multi_check.h
> > >
> > > we have a proper static linking now, we don't have to use header
> > > inclusion hacks, let's do this properly?
> >
> > ok, will change
> >
> > >
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
> > > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> > > > +
> > > > +#ifndef __MULTI_CHECK_H
> > > > +#define __MULTI_CHECK_H
> > > > +
> > > > +extern unsigned long long bpf_fentry_test[8];
> > > > +
> > > > +static __attribute__((unused)) inline
> > > > +void multi_arg_check(unsigned long ip, __u64 a, __u64 b, __u64 c, __u64 d, __u64 e, __u64 f, __u64 *test_result)
> > > > +{
> > > > + if (ip == bpf_fentry_test[0]) {
> > > > + *test_result += (int) a == 1;
> > > > + } else if (ip == bpf_fentry_test[1]) {
> > > > + *test_result += (int) a == 2 && (__u64) b == 3;
> > > > + } else if (ip == bpf_fentry_test[2]) {
> > > > + *test_result += (char) a == 4 && (int) b == 5 && (__u64) c == 6;
> > > > + } else if (ip == bpf_fentry_test[3]) {
> > > > + *test_result += (void *) a == (void *) 7 && (char) b == 8 && (int) c == 9 && (__u64) d == 10;
> > > > + } else if (ip == bpf_fentry_test[4]) {
> > > > + *test_result += (__u64) a == 11 && (void *) b == (void *) 12 && (short) c == 13 && (int) d == 14 && (__u64) e == 15;
> > > > + } else if (ip == bpf_fentry_test[5]) {
> > > > + *test_result += (__u64) a == 16 && (void *) b == (void *) 17 && (short) c == 18 && (int) d == 19 && (void *) e == (void *) 20 && (__u64) f == 21;
> > > > + } else if (ip == bpf_fentry_test[6]) {
> > > > + *test_result += 1;
> > > > + } else if (ip == bpf_fentry_test[7]) {
> > > > + *test_result += 1;
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > why not use switch? and why the casting?
> >
> > hum, for switch I'd need constants right?
>
> doh, of course :)
>
> but! you don't need to fill out bpf_fentry_test[] array from
> user-space, just use extern const void variables to get addresses of
> those functions:
>
> extern const void bpf_fentry_test1 __ksym;
> extern const void bpf_fentry_test2 __ksym;
> ...

nice, will use that

jirka