Re: [PATCH bpf-next 8/8] selftests/bpf: Add tests for attaching bpf_link to netns
From: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@cloudflare.com>
Date: 2020-05-28 13:29:33
Also in:
bpf
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 08:08 AM CEST, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 12:16 PM Jakub Sitnicki [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
Extend the existing test case for flow dissector attaching to cover: - link creation, - link updates, - link info querying, - mixing links with direct prog attachment. Signed-off-by: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@cloudflare.com> ---You are not using bpf_program__attach_netns() at all. Would be nice to actually use higher-level API here...
That's true. I didn't exercise the high-level API. I can cover that.
Also... what's up with people using CHECK_FAIL + perror instead of CHECK? Is CHECK being avoided for some reason or people are just not aware of it (which is strange, because CHECK was there before CHECK_FAIL)?
I can only speak for myself. Funnily enough I think I've switched from CHECK to CHECK_FAIL when I touched on BPF flow dissector last time [0]. CHECK needs and "external" duration variable to be in scope, and so it was suggested to me that if I'm not measuring run-time with bpf_prog_test_run, CHECK_FAIL might be a better choice. CHECK is also perhaps too verbose because it emits a log message on success (to report duration, I assume). You have a better overview of all the tests than me, but if I had the cycles I'd see if renaming CHECK to something more specific, for those test that actually track prog run time, can work. -jkbs [0] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/87imov1y5m.fsf@cloudflare.com/ (local)
quoted
.../bpf/prog_tests/flow_dissector_reattach.c | 500 +++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 471 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)[...]