Re: [PATCH 16/19] selftests/bpf: Add fentry multi func test
From: Andrii Nakryiko <hidden>
Date: 2021-06-09 05:40:55
Also in:
bpf
On Sat, Jun 5, 2021 at 4:12 AM Jiri Olsa [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
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.cdiff --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?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -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?
+} +
[...]
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_multi_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_multi_test.c new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..a443fc958e5a --- /dev/null +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_multi_test.c@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 +#include <linux/bpf.h> +#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h> +#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h> +#include "multi_check.h" + +char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL"; + +unsigned long long bpf_fentry_test[8]; + +__u64 test_result = 0; + +SEC("fentry.multi/bpf_fentry_test*")
wait, that's a regexp syntax that libc supports?.. Not .*? We should definitely not provide btf__find_by_pattern_kind() API, I'd like to avoid explaining what flavors of regexps libbpf supports.
+int BPF_PROG(test, unsigned long ip, __u64 a, __u64 b, __u64 c, __u64 d, __u64 e, __u64 f)
+{
+ multi_arg_check(ip, a, b, c, d, e, f, &test_result);
+ return 0;
+}
--
2.31.1