On 1/8/21 3:19 PM, Song Liu wrote:
quoted hunk
Task local storage is enabled for tracing programs. Add a test for it
without CONFIG_BPF_LSM.
Signed-off-by: Song Liu <redacted>
---
.../bpf/prog_tests/test_task_local_storage.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++
.../selftests/bpf/progs/task_local_storage.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 71 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_task_local_storage.c
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/task_local_storage.c
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_task_local_storage.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_task_local_storage.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000..7de7a154ebbe6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_task_local_storage.c
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+/* Copyright (c) 2020 Facebook */
2020 -> 2021
+
+#include <sys/types.h>
+#include <unistd.h>
+#include <test_progs.h>
+#include "task_local_storage.skel.h"
+
+static unsigned int duration;
+
+void test_test_task_local_storage(void)
+{
+ struct task_local_storage *skel;
+ const int count = 10;
+ int i, err;
+
+ skel = task_local_storage__open_and_load();
+
Extra line is unnecessary here.
+ if (CHECK(!skel, "skel_open_and_load", "skeleton open and load failed\n"))
+ return;
+
+ err = task_local_storage__attach(skel);
+
ditto.
+ if (CHECK(err, "skel_attach", "skeleton attach failed\n"))
+ goto out;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < count; i++)
+ usleep(1000);
Does a smaller usleep value will work? If it is, recommend to have a
smaller value here to reduce test_progs running time.
quoted hunk
+ CHECK(skel->bss->value < count, "task_local_storage_value",
+ "task local value too small\n");
+
+out:
+ task_local_storage__destroy(skel);
+}
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/task_local_storage.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/task_local_storage.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000..807255c5c162d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/task_local_storage.c
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+/* Copyright (c) 2020 Facebook */
2020 -> 2021
+
+#include "vmlinux.h"
+#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
+
+char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
+
+struct local_data {
+ __u64 val;
+};
+
+struct {
+ __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_TASK_STORAGE);
+ __uint(map_flags, BPF_F_NO_PREALLOC);
+ __type(key, int);
+ __type(value, struct local_data);
+} task_storage_map SEC(".maps");
+
+int value = 0;
+
+SEC("tp_btf/sched_switch")
+int BPF_PROG(on_switch, bool preempt, struct task_struct *prev,
+ struct task_struct *next)
+{
+ struct local_data *storage;
If it possible that we do some filtering based on test_progs pid
so below bpf_task_storage_get is only called for test_progs process?
This is more targeted and can avoid counter contributions from
other unrelated processes and make test_task_local_storage.c result
comparison more meaningful.
+
+ storage = bpf_task_storage_get(&task_storage_map,
+ next, 0,
+ BPF_LOCAL_STORAGE_GET_F_CREATE);
+ if (storage) {
+ storage->val++;
+ value = storage->val;
+ }
+ return 0;
+}
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 6:31 PM Yonghong Song [off-list ref] wrote:
On 1/8/21 3:19 PM, Song Liu wrote:
quoted
Task local storage is enabled for tracing programs. Add a test for it
without CONFIG_BPF_LSM.
Can you also explain what the test does in the commit log?
It would also be nicer to have a somewhat more realistic selftest which
represents a simple tracing + task local storage use case.
quoted
Signed-off-by: Song Liu <redacted>
---
.../bpf/prog_tests/test_task_local_storage.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++
.../selftests/bpf/progs/task_local_storage.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 71 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_task_local_storage.c
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/task_local_storage.c
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_task_local_storage.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_task_local_storage.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000..7de7a154ebbe6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_task_local_storage.c
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+/* Copyright (c) 2020 Facebook */
2020 -> 2021
quoted
+
+#include <sys/types.h>
+#include <unistd.h>
+#include <test_progs.h>
+#include "task_local_storage.skel.h"
+
+static unsigned int duration;
+
+void test_test_task_local_storage(void)
+{
+ struct task_local_storage *skel;
+ const int count = 10;
+ int i, err;
+
+ skel = task_local_storage__open_and_load();
+
Extra line is unnecessary here.
quoted
+ if (CHECK(!skel, "skel_open_and_load", "skeleton open and load failed\n"))
+ return;
+
+ err = task_local_storage__attach(skel);
+
ditto.
quoted
+ if (CHECK(err, "skel_attach", "skeleton attach failed\n"))
+ goto out;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < count; i++)
+ usleep(1000);
Does a smaller usleep value will work? If it is, recommend to have a
smaller value here to reduce test_progs running time.
quoted
+ CHECK(skel->bss->value < count, "task_local_storage_value",
+ "task local value too small\n");
[...]
quoted
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+/* Copyright (c) 2020 Facebook */
2020 -> 2021
quoted
+
+#include "vmlinux.h"
+#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
+
+char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
[...]
quoted
+{
+ struct local_data *storage;
If it possible that we do some filtering based on test_progs pid
so below bpf_task_storage_get is only called for test_progs process?
This is more targeted and can avoid counter contributions from
other unrelated processes and make test_task_local_storage.c result
comparison more meaningful.
Indeed, have a look at the monitored_pid approach some of the LSM programs
do.
quoted
+
+ storage = bpf_task_storage_get(&task_storage_map,
+ next, 0,
+ BPF_LOCAL_STORAGE_GET_F_CREATE);
+ if (storage) {
+ storage->val++;
+ value = storage->val;
+ }
+ return 0;
+}
On Jan 11, 2021, at 9:44 AM, KP Singh [off-list ref] wrote:
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 6:31 PM Yonghong Song [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On 1/8/21 3:19 PM, Song Liu wrote:
quoted
Task local storage is enabled for tracing programs. Add a test for it
without CONFIG_BPF_LSM.
Can you also explain what the test does in the commit log?
It would also be nicer to have a somewhat more realistic selftest which
represents a simple tracing + task local storage use case.
Let me try to make this more realistic.
Thanks,
Song
[...]
On Jan 11, 2021, at 9:30 AM, Yonghong Song [off-list ref] wrote:
On 1/8/21 3:19 PM, Song Liu wrote:
quoted
Task local storage is enabled for tracing programs. Add a test for it
without CONFIG_BPF_LSM.
Signed-off-by: Song Liu <redacted>
---
.../bpf/prog_tests/test_task_local_storage.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++
.../selftests/bpf/progs/task_local_storage.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 71 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_task_local_storage.c
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/task_local_storage.c
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_task_local_storage.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_task_local_storage.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000..7de7a154ebbe6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_task_local_storage.c
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+/* Copyright (c) 2020 Facebook */
2020 -> 2021
quoted
+
+#include <sys/types.h>
+#include <unistd.h>
+#include <test_progs.h>
+#include "task_local_storage.skel.h"
+
+static unsigned int duration;
+
+void test_test_task_local_storage(void)
+{
+ struct task_local_storage *skel;
+ const int count = 10;
+ int i, err;
+
+ skel = task_local_storage__open_and_load();
+
Extra line is unnecessary here.
quoted
+ if (CHECK(!skel, "skel_open_and_load", "skeleton open and load failed\n"))
+ return;
+
+ err = task_local_storage__attach(skel);
+
ditto.
quoted
+ if (CHECK(err, "skel_attach", "skeleton attach failed\n"))
+ goto out;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < count; i++)
+ usleep(1000);
Does a smaller usleep value will work? If it is, recommend to have a smaller value here to reduce test_progs running time.
I thought 10ms total was acceptable. But yeah, smaller value should still work.
quoted
+ CHECK(skel->bss->value < count, "task_local_storage_value",
+ "task local value too small\n");
+
+out:
+ task_local_storage__destroy(skel);
+}
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/task_local_storage.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/task_local_storage.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000..807255c5c162d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/task_local_storage.c
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+/* Copyright (c) 2020 Facebook */
2020 -> 2021
quoted
+
+#include "vmlinux.h"
+#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
+
+char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
+
+struct local_data {
+ __u64 val;
+};
+
+struct {
+ __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_TASK_STORAGE);
+ __uint(map_flags, BPF_F_NO_PREALLOC);
+ __type(key, int);
+ __type(value, struct local_data);
+} task_storage_map SEC(".maps");
+
+int value = 0;
+
+SEC("tp_btf/sched_switch")
+int BPF_PROG(on_switch, bool preempt, struct task_struct *prev,
+ struct task_struct *next)
+{
+ struct local_data *storage;
If it possible that we do some filtering based on test_progs pid
so below bpf_task_storage_get is only called for test_progs process?
This is more targeted and can avoid counter contributions from
other unrelated processes and make test_task_local_storage.c result
comparison more meaningful.
Make sense. Will fix in the next version.
quoted
+
+ storage = bpf_task_storage_get(&task_storage_map,
+ next, 0,
+ BPF_LOCAL_STORAGE_GET_F_CREATE);
+ if (storage) {
+ storage->val++;
+ value = storage->val;
+ }
+ return 0;
+}