2019-07-08 22:44:00

by Krzesimir Nowak

Subject: [bpf-next v3 01/12] selftests/bpf: Print a message when tester could not run a program

This prints a message when the error is about program type being not
supported by the test runner or because of permissions problem. This
is to see if the program we expected to run was actually executed.

The messages are open-coded because strerror(ENOTSUPP) returns
"Unknown error 524".

Changes since v2:
- Also print "FAIL" on an unexpected bpf_prog_test_run error, so there
is a corresponding "FAIL" message for each failed test.

Signed-off-by: Krzesimir Nowak <[email protected]>
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 17 +++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
index c5514daf8865..b8d065623ead 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
@@ -831,11 +831,20 @@ static int do_prog_test_run(int fd_prog, bool unpriv, uint32_t expected_val,
tmp, &size_tmp, &retval, NULL);
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) {
+ 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;
+ 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;
--
2.20.1

2019-07-10 23:45:47

by Andrii Nakryiko

Subject: Re: [bpf-next v3 01/12] selftests/bpf: Print a message when tester could not run a program

On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 3:42 PM Krzesimir Nowak <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> This prints a message when the error is about program type being not
> supported by the test runner or because of permissions problem. This
> is to see if the program we expected to run was actually executed.
>
> The messages are open-coded because strerror(ENOTSUPP) returns
> "Unknown error 524".
>
> Changes since v2:
> - Also print "FAIL" on an unexpected bpf_prog_test_run error, so there
> is a corresponding "FAIL" message for each failed test.
>
> Signed-off-by: Krzesimir Nowak <[email protected]>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 17 +++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> index c5514daf8865..b8d065623ead 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> @@ -831,11 +831,20 @@ static int do_prog_test_run(int fd_prog, bool unpriv, uint32_t expected_val,
> tmp, &size_tmp, &retval, NULL);
> 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) {
> + case 524/*ENOTSUPP*/:
> + printf("Did not run the program (not supported) ");
> + return 0;
> + case EPERM:
> + printf("Did not run the program (no permission) ");

Let's add "SKIP: " prefix to these?

> + return 0;
> + 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;
> --
> 2.20.1
>

2019-07-11 11:37:17

by Krzesimir Nowak

Subject: Re: [bpf-next v3 01/12] selftests/bpf: Print a message when tester could not run a program

On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 1:45 AM Andrii Nakryiko
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 3:42 PM Krzesimir Nowak <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > This prints a message when the error is about program type being not
> > supported by the test runner or because of permissions problem. This
> > is to see if the program we expected to run was actually executed.
> >
> > The messages are open-coded because strerror(ENOTSUPP) returns
> > "Unknown error 524".
> >
> > Changes since v2:
> > - Also print "FAIL" on an unexpected bpf_prog_test_run error, so there
> > is a corresponding "FAIL" message for each failed test.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Krzesimir Nowak <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 17 +++++++++++++----
> > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> > index c5514daf8865..b8d065623ead 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> > @@ -831,11 +831,20 @@ static int do_prog_test_run(int fd_prog, bool unpriv, uint32_t expected_val,
> > tmp, &size_tmp, &retval, NULL);
> > 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) {
> > + case 524/*ENOTSUPP*/:
> > + printf("Did not run the program (not supported) ");
> > + return 0;
> > + case EPERM:
> > + printf("Did not run the program (no permission) ");
>
> Let's add "SKIP: " prefix to these?

Not sure about it. The important part of the test (the program being
verified by the kernel's verifier) was still executed, so the test is
not really skipped.


>
> > + return 0;
> > + 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;
> > --
> > 2.20.1
> >



--
Kinvolk GmbH | Adalbertstr.6a, 10999 Berlin | tel: +491755589364
Geschäftsführer/Directors: Alban Crequy, Chris Kühl, Iago López Galeiras
Registergericht/Court of registration: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg
Registernummer/Registration number: HRB 171414 B
Ust-ID-Nummer/VAT ID number: DE302207000

2019-07-12 01:06:34

by Andrii Nakryiko

Subject: Re: [bpf-next v3 01/12] selftests/bpf: Print a message when tester could not run a program

On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 4:36 AM Krzesimir Nowak <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 1:45 AM Andrii Nakryiko
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 3:42 PM Krzesimir Nowak <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > This prints a message when the error is about program type being not
> > > supported by the test runner or because of permissions problem. This
> > > is to see if the program we expected to run was actually executed.
> > >
> > > The messages are open-coded because strerror(ENOTSUPP) returns
> > > "Unknown error 524".
> > >
> > > Changes since v2:
> > > - Also print "FAIL" on an unexpected bpf_prog_test_run error, so there
> > > is a corresponding "FAIL" message for each failed test.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Krzesimir Nowak <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 17 +++++++++++++----
> > > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> > > index c5514daf8865..b8d065623ead 100644
> > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> > > @@ -831,11 +831,20 @@ static int do_prog_test_run(int fd_prog, bool unpriv, uint32_t expected_val,
> > > tmp, &size_tmp, &retval, NULL);
> > > 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) {
> > > + case 524/*ENOTSUPP*/:
> > > + printf("Did not run the program (not supported) ");
> > > + return 0;
> > > + case EPERM:
> > > + printf("Did not run the program (no permission) ");
> >
> > Let's add "SKIP: " prefix to these?
>
> Not sure about it. The important part of the test (the program being
> verified by the kernel's verifier) was still executed, so the test is
> not really skipped.


Ah, I see. So the program was loaded/verifierd, but wasn't test-run.

Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]>

>
>
> >
> > > + return 0;
> > > + 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;
> > > --
> > > 2.20.1
> > >
>
>
>
> --
> Kinvolk GmbH | Adalbertstr.6a, 10999 Berlin | tel: +491755589364
> Geschäftsführer/Directors: Alban Crequy, Chris Kühl, Iago López Galeiras
> Registergericht/Court of registration: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg
> Registernummer/Registration number: HRB 171414 B
> Ust-ID-Nummer/VAT ID number: DE302207000