Re: [bpf PATCH] bpf, selftests: test_maps generating unrecognized data section
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Date: 2021-03-25 21:08:21
Also in:
bpf
On 3/24/21 10:07 PM, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
With a relatively recent clang master branch test_map skips a section, libbpf: elf: skipping unrecognized data section(5) .rodata.str1.1 the cause is some pointless strings from bpf_printks in the BPF program loaded during testing. Remove them so we stop tripping our test bots. Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com> --- .../selftests/bpf/progs/sockmap_tcp_msg_prog.c | 3 --- 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/sockmap_tcp_msg_prog.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/sockmap_tcp_msg_prog.c index fdb4bf4408fa..0f603253f4ed 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/sockmap_tcp_msg_prog.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/sockmap_tcp_msg_prog.c@@ -16,10 +16,7 @@ int bpf_prog1(struct sk_msg_md *msg) if (data + 8 > data_end) return SK_DROP; - bpf_printk("data length %i\n", (__u64)msg->data_end - (__u64)msg->data); d = (char *)data;
Do we still need 'd' as well in that case, or the data + 8 > data_end test if we don't read any of the data? I'm not sure what was the original purpose of the prog, perhaps just to test that we can attach /something/ in general? Maybe in that case empty prog is sufficient if we don't do anything useful with the rest?
- bpf_printk("hello sendmsg hook %i %i\n", d[0], d[1]);
-
return SK_PASS;
}