Re: [PATCH 2/2] selftests/bpf: Print reason when a tester could not run a program
From: Andrii Nakryiko <hidden>
Date: 2020-12-02 01:24:54
Also in:
bpf
On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 11:29 AM Florian Lehner [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Print a message when the returned error is about a program type being not supported or because of permission problems. These messages are expected if the program to test was actually executed. Cc: Krzesimir Nowak <redacted> Signed-off-by: Florian Lehner <redacted> --- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++----- 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c index ceea9409639e..bd95894b7ea0 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c@@ -875,19 +875,33 @@ static int do_prog_test_run(int fd_prog, bool unpriv, uint32_t expected_val, __u8 tmp[TEST_DATA_LEN << 2]; __u32 size_tmp = sizeof(tmp); uint32_t retval; - int err; + int err, saved_errno; if (unpriv) set_admin(true); err = bpf_prog_test_run(fd_prog, 1, data, size_data, tmp, &size_tmp, &retval, NULL); + saved_errno = errno; + if (unpriv) set_admin(false); - if (err && errno != 524/*ENOTSUPP*/ && errno != EPERM) { - printf("Unexpected bpf_prog_test_run error "); - return err; + + if (err) { + switch (errno) {
nit: stick to using saved_errno consistently, set_admin() does a lot of things that can change errno
+ case 524/*ENOTSUPP*/:
+ printf("Did not run the program (not supported) ");
+ return 0;
+ case EPERM:
+ printf("Did not run the program (no permission) ");
+ return 0;This should be ok to ignore *only* in unpriv mode, no?
+ default:
+ printf("FAIL: Unexpected bpf_prog_test_run error (%s) ",
+ strerror(saved_errno));
+ return err;
+ }
}
- if (!err && retval != expected_val &&
+
+ if (retval != expected_val &&
expected_val != POINTER_VALUE) {
printf("FAIL retval %d != %d ", retval, expected_val);
return 1;
--
2.28.0