Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c
between commit:
f6be4d16039b ("selftests/bpf: make sure signal interrupts BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN")
from the bpf tree and commits:
bf0f0fd93945 ("selftests/bpf: add simple BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN examples for flow dissector")
ab963beb9f5d ("selftests/bpf: add bpf_spin_lock C test")
ba72a7b4badb ("selftests/bpf: test for BPF_F_LOCK")
from the net-next tree.
I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
diff --cc tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c
index 7842e3749b19,c52bd90fbb34..000000000000
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c
@@@ -10,8 -10,8 +10,9 @@@
#include <string.h>
#include <assert.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
+ #include <stdarg.h>
#include <time.h>
+#include <signal.h>
#include <linux/types.h>
typedef __u16 __sum16;
@@@ -28,9 -28,8 +29,9 @@@
#include <sys/ioctl.h>
#include <sys/wait.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
+#include <sys/time.h>
#include <fcntl.h>
-
+ #include <pthread.h>
#include <linux/bpf.h>
#include <linux/err.h>
#include <bpf/bpf.h>
@@@ -1914,47 -1925,189 +1927,230 @@@ out
bpf_object__close(obj);
}
+static void sigalrm_handler(int s) {}
+static struct sigaction sigalrm_action = {
+ .sa_handler = sigalrm_handler,
+};
+
+static void test_signal_pending(void)
+{
+ struct bpf_insn prog[4096];
+ struct itimerval timeo = {
+ .it_value.tv_usec = 100000, /* 100ms */
+ };
+ __u32 duration, retval;
+ int prog_fd;
+ int err;
+ int i;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(prog); i++)
+ prog[i] = BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_MOV, BPF_REG_0, 0);
+ prog[ARRAY_SIZE(prog) - 1] = BPF_EXIT_INSN();
+
+ prog_fd = bpf_load_program(BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCKET_FILTER,
+ prog, ARRAY_SIZE(prog),
+ "GPL", 0, NULL, 0);
+ CHECK(prog_fd < 0, "test-run", "errno %d\n", errno);
+
+ err = sigaction(SIGALRM, &sigalrm_action, NULL);
+ CHECK(err, "test-run-signal-sigaction", "errno %d\n", errno);
+
+ err = setitimer(ITIMER_REAL, &timeo, NULL);
+ CHECK(err, "test-run-signal-timer", "errno %d\n", errno);
+
+ err = bpf_prog_test_run(prog_fd, 0xffffffff, &pkt_v4, sizeof(pkt_v4),
+ NULL, NULL, &retval, &duration);
+ CHECK(err != -1 || errno != EINTR || duration > 1000000000,
+ "test-run-signal-run",
+ "err %d errno %d retval %d\n",
+ err, errno, retval);
+
+ signal(SIGALRM, SIG_DFL);
+}
+
+ #define CHECK_FLOW_KEYS(desc, got, expected) \
+ CHECK(memcmp(&got, &expected, sizeof(got)) != 0, \
+ desc, \
+ "nhoff=%u/%u " \
+ "thoff=%u/%u " \
+ "addr_proto=0x%x/0x%x " \
+ "is_frag=%u/%u " \
+ "is_first_frag=%u/%u " \
+ "is_encap=%u/%u " \
+ "n_proto=0x%x/0x%x " \
+ "sport=%u/%u " \
+ "dport=%u/%u\n", \
+ got.nhoff, expected.nhoff, \
+ got.thoff, expected.thoff, \
+ got.addr_proto, expected.addr_proto, \
+ got.is_frag, expected.is_frag, \
+ got.is_first_frag, expected.is_first_frag, \
+ got.is_encap, expected.is_encap, \
+ got.n_proto, expected.n_proto, \
+ got.sport, expected.sport, \
+ got.dport, expected.dport)
+
+ static struct bpf_flow_keys pkt_v4_flow_keys = {
+ .nhoff = 0,
+ .thoff = sizeof(struct iphdr),
+ .addr_proto = ETH_P_IP,
+ .ip_proto = IPPROTO_TCP,
+ .n_proto = bpf_htons(ETH_P_IP),
+ };
+
+ static struct bpf_flow_keys pkt_v6_flow_keys = {
+ .nhoff = 0,
+ .thoff = sizeof(struct ipv6hdr),
+ .addr_proto = ETH_P_IPV6,
+ .ip_proto = IPPROTO_TCP,
+ .n_proto = bpf_htons(ETH_P_IPV6),
+ };
+
+ static void test_flow_dissector(void)
+ {
+ struct bpf_flow_keys flow_keys;
+ struct bpf_object *obj;
+ __u32 duration, retval;
+ int err, prog_fd;
+ __u32 size;
+
+ err = bpf_flow_load(&obj, "./bpf_flow.o", "flow_dissector",
+ "jmp_table", &prog_fd);
+ if (err) {
+ error_cnt++;
+ return;
+ }
+
+ err = bpf_prog_test_run(prog_fd, 10, &pkt_v4, sizeof(pkt_v4),
+ &flow_keys, &size, &retval, &duration);
+ CHECK(size != sizeof(flow_keys) || err || retval != 1, "ipv4",
+ "err %d errno %d retval %d duration %d size %u/%lu\n",
+ err, errno, retval, duration, size, sizeof(flow_keys));
+ CHECK_FLOW_KEYS("ipv4_flow_keys", flow_keys, pkt_v4_flow_keys);
+
+ err = bpf_prog_test_run(prog_fd, 10, &pkt_v6, sizeof(pkt_v6),
+ &flow_keys, &size, &retval, &duration);
+ CHECK(size != sizeof(flow_keys) || err || retval != 1, "ipv6",
+ "err %d errno %d retval %d duration %d size %u/%lu\n",
+ err, errno, retval, duration, size, sizeof(flow_keys));
+ CHECK_FLOW_KEYS("ipv6_flow_keys", flow_keys, pkt_v6_flow_keys);
+
+ bpf_object__close(obj);
+ }
+
+ static void *test_spin_lock(void *arg)
+ {
+ __u32 duration, retval;
+ int err, prog_fd = *(u32 *) arg;
+
+ err = bpf_prog_test_run(prog_fd, 10000, &pkt_v4, sizeof(pkt_v4),
+ NULL, NULL, &retval, &duration);
+ CHECK(err || retval, "",
+ "err %d errno %d retval %d duration %d\n",
+ err, errno, retval, duration);
+ pthread_exit(arg);
+ }
+
+ static void test_spinlock(void)
+ {
+ const char *file = "./test_spin_lock.o";
+ pthread_t thread_id[4];
+ struct bpf_object *obj;
+ int prog_fd;
+ int err = 0, i;
+ void *ret;
+
+ err = bpf_prog_load(file, BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SKB, &obj, &prog_fd);
+ if (err) {
+ printf("test_spin_lock:bpf_prog_load errno %d\n", errno);
+ goto close_prog;
+ }
+ for (i = 0; i < 4; i++)
+ assert(pthread_create(&thread_id[i], NULL,
+ &test_spin_lock, &prog_fd) == 0);
+ for (i = 0; i < 4; i++)
+ assert(pthread_join(thread_id[i], &ret) == 0 &&
+ ret == (void *)&prog_fd);
+ goto close_prog_noerr;
+ close_prog:
+ error_cnt++;
+ close_prog_noerr:
+ bpf_object__close(obj);
+ }
+
+ static void *parallel_map_access(void *arg)
+ {
+ int err, map_fd = *(u32 *) arg;
+ int vars[17], i, j, rnd, key = 0;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
+ err = bpf_map_lookup_elem_flags(map_fd, &key, vars, BPF_F_LOCK);
+ if (err) {
+ printf("lookup failed\n");
+ error_cnt++;
+ goto out;
+ }
+ if (vars[0] != 0) {
+ printf("lookup #%d var[0]=%d\n", i, vars[0]);
+ error_cnt++;
+ goto out;
+ }
+ rnd = vars[1];
+ for (j = 2; j < 17; j++) {
+ if (vars[j] == rnd)
+ continue;
+ printf("lookup #%d var[1]=%d var[%d]=%d\n",
+ i, rnd, j, vars[j]);
+ error_cnt++;
+ goto out;
+ }
+ }
+ out:
+ pthread_exit(arg);
+ }
+
+ static void test_map_lock(void)
+ {
+ const char *file = "./test_map_lock.o";
+ int prog_fd, map_fd[2], vars[17] = {};
+ pthread_t thread_id[6];
+ struct bpf_object *obj;
+ int err = 0, key = 0, i;
+ void *ret;
+
+ err = bpf_prog_load(file, BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SKB, &obj, &prog_fd);
+ if (err) {
+ printf("test_map_lock:bpf_prog_load errno %d\n", errno);
+ goto close_prog;
+ }
+ map_fd[0] = bpf_find_map(__func__, obj, "hash_map");
+ if (map_fd[0] < 0)
+ goto close_prog;
+ map_fd[1] = bpf_find_map(__func__, obj, "array_map");
+ if (map_fd[1] < 0)
+ goto close_prog;
+
+ bpf_map_update_elem(map_fd[0], &key, vars, BPF_F_LOCK);
+
+ for (i = 0; i < 4; i++)
+ assert(pthread_create(&thread_id[i], NULL,
+ &test_spin_lock, &prog_fd) == 0);
+ for (i = 4; i < 6; i++)
+ assert(pthread_create(&thread_id[i], NULL,
+ ¶llel_map_access, &map_fd[i - 4]) == 0);
+ for (i = 0; i < 4; i++)
+ assert(pthread_join(thread_id[i], &ret) == 0 &&
+ ret == (void *)&prog_fd);
+ for (i = 4; i < 6; i++)
+ assert(pthread_join(thread_id[i], &ret) == 0 &&
+ ret == (void *)&map_fd[i - 4]);
+ goto close_prog_noerr;
+ close_prog:
+ error_cnt++;
+ close_prog_noerr:
+ bpf_object__close(obj);
+ }
+
int main(void)
{
srand(time(NULL));
@@@ -1982,7 -2135,9 +2178,10 @@@
test_reference_tracking();
test_queue_stack_map(QUEUE);
test_queue_stack_map(STACK);
+ test_signal_pending();
+ test_flow_dissector();
+ test_spinlock();
+ test_map_lock();
printf("Summary: %d PASSED, %d FAILED\n", pass_cnt, error_cnt);
return error_cnt ? EXIT_FAILURE : EXIT_SUCCESS;
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 4:37 PM Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
>
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c
>
> between commit:
>
> f6be4d16039b ("selftests/bpf: make sure signal interrupts BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN")
Ouch. Thanks for the heads up.
Daniel,
should we drop this one from bpf tree ?
I don't think it's strictly necessary.
> from the bpf tree and commits:
>
> bf0f0fd93945 ("selftests/bpf: add simple BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN examples for flow dissector")
> ab963beb9f5d ("selftests/bpf: add bpf_spin_lock C test")
> ba72a7b4badb ("selftests/bpf: test for BPF_F_LOCK")
>
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 4:41 PM Alexei Starovoitov
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 4:37 PM Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> > f6be4d16039b ("selftests/bpf: make sure signal interrupts BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN")
>
> Ouch. Thanks for the heads up.
>
> Daniel,
> should we drop this one from bpf tree ?
> I don't think it's strictly necessary.
Yeah, those can go via the bpf-next three as well, not very critical.
OTOH, I don't understand why is there a conflict? bpf and bpf-next
adding tests in the same place/file? Those can be trivially resolved
when bpf and bpf-next are merged in the next window.
>
> > from the bpf tree and commits:
> >
> > bf0f0fd93945 ("selftests/bpf: add simple BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN examples for flow dissector")
> > ab963beb9f5d ("selftests/bpf: add bpf_spin_lock C test")
> > ba72a7b4badb ("selftests/bpf: test for BPF_F_LOCK")
> >
Hi Stanislav,
On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 16:45:46 -0800 Stanislav Fomichev <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> OTOH, I don't understand why is there a conflict? bpf and bpf-next
> adding tests in the same place/file? Those can be trivially resolved
> when bpf and bpf-next are merged in the next window.
Yes, and yes :-)
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
On 02/20/2019 01:41 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 4:37 PM Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
>>
>> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>> f6be4d16039b ("selftests/bpf: make sure signal interrupts BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN")
>
> Ouch. Thanks for the heads up.
>
> Daniel,
> should we drop this one from bpf tree ?
> I don't think it's strictly necessary.
Yeah no objections, lets move the selftest one over to bpf-next and
have it properly integrated. I think test_progs might potentially need
further topic-split aside from kernel progs like we did in test_verifier.
>> from the bpf tree and commits:
>>
>> bf0f0fd93945 ("selftests/bpf: add simple BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN examples for flow dissector")
>> ab963beb9f5d ("selftests/bpf: add bpf_spin_lock C test")
>> ba72a7b4badb ("selftests/bpf: test for BPF_F_LOCK")
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 5:07 PM Daniel Borkmann <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 02/20/2019 01:41 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 4:37 PM Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
> >>
> >> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c
> >>
> >> between commit:
> >>
> >> f6be4d16039b ("selftests/bpf: make sure signal interrupts BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN")
> >
> > Ouch. Thanks for the heads up.
> >
> > Daniel,
> > should we drop this one from bpf tree ?
> > I don't think it's strictly necessary.
>
> Yeah no objections, lets move the selftest one over to bpf-next and
> have it properly integrated. I think test_progs might potentially need
> further topic-split aside from kernel progs like we did in test_verifier.
Do you want me to follow up with a clean rebased bpf-next sefltest patch?
Or you'll take care of it yourself?
> >> from the bpf tree and commits:
> >>
> >> bf0f0fd93945 ("selftests/bpf: add simple BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN examples for flow dissector")
> >> ab963beb9f5d ("selftests/bpf: add bpf_spin_lock C test")
> >> ba72a7b4badb ("selftests/bpf: test for BPF_F_LOCK")