From: Menglong Dong <[email protected]>
Add test7/test12/test14 in fexit_test.c and fentry_test.c to test the
fentry and fexit whose target function have 7/12/14 arguments.
And the testcases passed:
./test_progs -t fexit
$71 fentry_fexit:OK
$73/1 fexit_bpf2bpf/target_no_callees:OK
$73/2 fexit_bpf2bpf/target_yes_callees:OK
$73/3 fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace:OK
$73/4 fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace_verify:OK
$73/5 fexit_bpf2bpf/func_sockmap_update:OK
$73/6 fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace_return_code:OK
$73/7 fexit_bpf2bpf/func_map_prog_compatibility:OK
$73/8 fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace_multi:OK
$73/9 fexit_bpf2bpf/fmod_ret_freplace:OK
$73/10 fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace_global_func:OK
$73/11 fexit_bpf2bpf/fentry_to_cgroup_bpf:OK
$73/12 fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace_progmap:OK
$73 fexit_bpf2bpf:OK
$74 fexit_sleep:OK
$75 fexit_stress:OK
$76 fexit_test:OK
Summary: 5/12 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
./test_progs -t fentry
$71 fentry_fexit:OK
$72 fentry_test:OK
$140 module_fentry_shadow:OK
Summary: 3/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
Reviewed-by: Jiang Biao <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong <[email protected]>
---
net/bpf/test_run.c | 30 +++++++++++++++-
.../testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_test.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++
.../testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fexit_test.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 98 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/net/bpf/test_run.c b/net/bpf/test_run.c
index c73f246a706f..e12a72311eca 100644
--- a/net/bpf/test_run.c
+++ b/net/bpf/test_run.c
@@ -536,6 +536,27 @@ int noinline bpf_fentry_test6(u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, void *e, u64 f)
return a + (long)b + c + d + (long)e + f;
}
+noinline int bpf_fentry_test7(u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, void *e,
+ u64 f, u64 g)
+{
+ return a + (long)b + c + d + (long)e + f + g;
+}
+
+noinline int bpf_fentry_test12(u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, void *e,
+ u64 f, u64 g, u64 h, u64 i, u64 j,
+ u64 k, u64 l)
+{
+ return a + (long)b + c + d + (long)e + f + g + h + i + j + k + l;
+}
+
+noinline int bpf_fentry_test14(u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, void *e,
+ u64 f, u64 g, u64 h, u64 i, u64 j,
+ u64 k, u64 l, u64 m, u64 n)
+{
+ return a + (long)b + c + d + (long)e + f + g + h + i + j + k + l +
+ m + n;
+}
+
struct bpf_fentry_test_t {
struct bpf_fentry_test_t *a;
};
@@ -657,7 +678,14 @@ int bpf_prog_test_run_tracing(struct bpf_prog *prog,
bpf_fentry_test6(16, (void *)17, 18, 19, (void *)20, 21) != 111 ||
bpf_fentry_test_ptr1((struct bpf_fentry_test_t *)0) != 0 ||
bpf_fentry_test_ptr2(&arg) != 0 ||
- bpf_fentry_test_ptr3(&retval) != 0)
+ bpf_fentry_test_ptr3(&retval) != 0 ||
+ bpf_fentry_test7(16, (void *)17, 18, 19, (void *)20,
+ 21, 22) != 133 ||
+ bpf_fentry_test12(16, (void *)17, 18, 19, (void *)20,
+ 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27) != 258 ||
+ bpf_fentry_test14(16, (void *)17, 18, 19, (void *)20,
+ 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28,
+ 29) != 315)
goto out;
break;
case BPF_MODIFY_RETURN:
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_test.c
index 558a5f1d3d5c..0666a907f7ea 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_test.c
@@ -56,6 +56,40 @@ int BPF_PROG(test6, __u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, void * e, __u64 f)
return 0;
}
+__u64 test7_result = 0;
+SEC("fentry/bpf_fentry_test7")
+int BPF_PROG(test7, __u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, void *e, __u64 f,
+ __u64 g)
+{
+ test7_result = a == 16 && b == (void *)17 && c == 18 && d == 19 &&
+ e == (void *)20 && f == 21 && g == 22;
+ return 0;
+}
+
+__u64 test12_result = 0;
+SEC("fentry/bpf_fentry_test12")
+int BPF_PROG(test12, __u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, void *e, __u64 f,
+ __u64 g, __u64 h, __u64 i, __u64 j, __u64 k, __u64 l)
+{
+ test12_result = a == 16 && b == (void *)17 && c == 18 && d == 19 &&
+ e == (void *)20 && f == 21 && g == 22 && h == 23 &&
+ i == 24 && j == 25 && k == 26 && l == 27;
+ return 0;
+}
+
+__u64 test14_result = 0;
+SEC("fentry/bpf_fentry_test14")
+int BPF_PROG(test14, __u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, void *e, __u64 f,
+ __u64 g, __u64 h, __u64 i, __u64 j, __u64 k, __u64 l,
+ __u64 m, __u64 n)
+{
+ test14_result = a == 16 && b == (void *)17 && c == 18 && d == 19 &&
+ e == (void *)20 && f == 21 && g == 22 && h == 23 &&
+ i == 24 && j == 25 && k == 26 && l == 27 && m == 28 &&
+ n == 29;
+ return 0;
+}
+
struct bpf_fentry_test_t {
struct bpf_fentry_test_t *a;
};
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fexit_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fexit_test.c
index f57886e6d918..1b9102ad1418 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fexit_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fexit_test.c
@@ -57,6 +57,41 @@ int BPF_PROG(test6, __u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, void *e, __u64 f, int ret)
return 0;
}
+__u64 test7_result = 0;
+SEC("fexit/bpf_fentry_test7")
+int BPF_PROG(test7, __u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, void *e, __u64 f,
+ __u64 g, int ret)
+{
+ test7_result = a == 16 && b == (void *)17 && c == 18 && d == 19 &&
+ e == (void *)20 && f == 21 && g == 22 && ret == 133;
+ return 0;
+}
+
+__u64 test12_result = 0;
+SEC("fexit/bpf_fentry_test12")
+int BPF_PROG(test12, __u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, void *e, __u64 f,
+ __u64 g, __u64 h, __u64 i, __u64 j, __u64 k, __u64 l,
+ int ret)
+{
+ test12_result = a == 16 && b == (void *)17 && c == 18 && d == 19 &&
+ e == (void *)20 && f == 21 && g == 22 && h == 23 &&
+ i == 24 && j == 25 && k == 26 && l == 27 && ret == 258;
+ return 0;
+}
+
+__u64 test14_result = 0;
+SEC("fexit/bpf_fentry_test14")
+int BPF_PROG(test14, __u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, void *e, __u64 f,
+ __u64 g, __u64 h, __u64 i, __u64 j, __u64 k, __u64 l,
+ __u64 m, __u64 n, int ret)
+{
+ test14_result = a == 16 && b == (void *)17 && c == 18 && d == 19 &&
+ e == (void *)20 && f == 21 && g == 22 && h == 23 &&
+ i == 24 && j == 25 && k == 26 && l == 27 && m == 28 &&
+ n == 29 && ret == 315;
+ return 0;
+}
+
struct bpf_fentry_test_t {
struct bpf_fentry_test *a;
};
--
2.40.1
On Fri, 2023-06-02 at 14:59 +0800, [email protected] wrote:
> From: Menglong Dong <[email protected]>
>
> Add test7/test12/test14 in fexit_test.c and fentry_test.c to test the
> fentry and fexit whose target function have 7/12/14 arguments.
>
> And the testcases passed:
>
> ./test_progs -t fexit
> $71 fentry_fexit:OK
> $73/1 fexit_bpf2bpf/target_no_callees:OK
> $73/2 fexit_bpf2bpf/target_yes_callees:OK
> $73/3 fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace:OK
> $73/4 fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace_verify:OK
> $73/5 fexit_bpf2bpf/func_sockmap_update:OK
> $73/6 fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace_return_code:OK
> $73/7 fexit_bpf2bpf/func_map_prog_compatibility:OK
> $73/8 fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace_multi:OK
> $73/9 fexit_bpf2bpf/fmod_ret_freplace:OK
> $73/10 fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace_global_func:OK
> $73/11 fexit_bpf2bpf/fentry_to_cgroup_bpf:OK
> $73/12 fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace_progmap:OK
> $73 fexit_bpf2bpf:OK
> $74 fexit_sleep:OK
> $75 fexit_stress:OK
> $76 fexit_test:OK
> Summary: 5/12 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
>
> ./test_progs -t fentry
> $71 fentry_fexit:OK
> $72 fentry_test:OK
> $140 module_fentry_shadow:OK
> Summary: 3/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
>
> Reviewed-by: Jiang Biao <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong <[email protected]>
> ---
> net/bpf/test_run.c | 30 +++++++++++++++-
> .../testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_test.c | 34
> ++++++++++++++++++
> .../testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fexit_test.c | 35
> +++++++++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 98 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Don't you also need
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fentry_fexit.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fentry_fexit.c
@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ void test_fentry_fexit(void)
fentry_res = (__u64 *)fentry_skel->bss;
fexit_res = (__u64 *)fexit_skel->bss;
printf("%lld\n", fentry_skel->bss->test1_result);
- for (i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
+ for (i = 0; i < 11; i++) {
ASSERT_EQ(fentry_res[i], 1, "fentry result");
ASSERT_EQ(fexit_res[i], 1, "fexit result");
}
to verify the results of the new tests?
On Fri, Jun 2, 2023 at 4:24 PM Ilya Leoshkevich <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2023-06-02 at 14:59 +0800, [email protected] wrote:
> > From: Menglong Dong <[email protected]>
> >
> > Add test7/test12/test14 in fexit_test.c and fentry_test.c to test the
> > fentry and fexit whose target function have 7/12/14 arguments.
> >
> > And the testcases passed:
> >
> > ./test_progs -t fexit
> > $71 fentry_fexit:OK
> > $73/1 fexit_bpf2bpf/target_no_callees:OK
> > $73/2 fexit_bpf2bpf/target_yes_callees:OK
> > $73/3 fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace:OK
> > $73/4 fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace_verify:OK
> > $73/5 fexit_bpf2bpf/func_sockmap_update:OK
> > $73/6 fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace_return_code:OK
> > $73/7 fexit_bpf2bpf/func_map_prog_compatibility:OK
> > $73/8 fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace_multi:OK
> > $73/9 fexit_bpf2bpf/fmod_ret_freplace:OK
> > $73/10 fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace_global_func:OK
> > $73/11 fexit_bpf2bpf/fentry_to_cgroup_bpf:OK
> > $73/12 fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace_progmap:OK
> > $73 fexit_bpf2bpf:OK
> > $74 fexit_sleep:OK
> > $75 fexit_stress:OK
> > $76 fexit_test:OK
> > Summary: 5/12 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
> >
> > ./test_progs -t fentry
> > $71 fentry_fexit:OK
> > $72 fentry_test:OK
> > $140 module_fentry_shadow:OK
> > Summary: 3/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Jiang Biao <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > net/bpf/test_run.c | 30 +++++++++++++++-
> > .../testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_test.c | 34
> > ++++++++++++++++++
> > .../testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fexit_test.c | 35
> > +++++++++++++++++++
> > 3 files changed, 98 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Don't you also need
>
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fentry_fexit.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fentry_fexit.c
> @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ void test_fentry_fexit(void)
> fentry_res = (__u64 *)fentry_skel->bss;
> fexit_res = (__u64 *)fexit_skel->bss;
> printf("%lld\n", fentry_skel->bss->test1_result);
> - for (i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
> + for (i = 0; i < 11; i++) {
> ASSERT_EQ(fentry_res[i], 1, "fentry result");
> ASSERT_EQ(fexit_res[i], 1, "fexit result");
> }
>
> to verify the results of the new tests?
Oops, I missed this part......Thank you for reminding,
and I'll fix it in V3.
Thanks!
Menglong Dong
On Fri, Jun 2, 2023 at 12:03 AM <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> From: Menglong Dong <[email protected]>
>
> Add test7/test12/test14 in fexit_test.c and fentry_test.c to test the
> fentry and fexit whose target function have 7/12/14 arguments.
>
> And the testcases passed:
>
> ./test_progs -t fexit
> $71 fentry_fexit:OK
> $73/1 fexit_bpf2bpf/target_no_callees:OK
> $73/2 fexit_bpf2bpf/target_yes_callees:OK
> $73/3 fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace:OK
> $73/4 fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace_verify:OK
> $73/5 fexit_bpf2bpf/func_sockmap_update:OK
> $73/6 fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace_return_code:OK
> $73/7 fexit_bpf2bpf/func_map_prog_compatibility:OK
> $73/8 fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace_multi:OK
> $73/9 fexit_bpf2bpf/fmod_ret_freplace:OK
> $73/10 fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace_global_func:OK
> $73/11 fexit_bpf2bpf/fentry_to_cgroup_bpf:OK
> $73/12 fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace_progmap:OK
> $73 fexit_bpf2bpf:OK
> $74 fexit_sleep:OK
> $75 fexit_stress:OK
> $76 fexit_test:OK
> Summary: 5/12 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
>
> ./test_progs -t fentry
> $71 fentry_fexit:OK
> $72 fentry_test:OK
> $140 module_fentry_shadow:OK
> Summary: 3/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
>
> Reviewed-by: Jiang Biao <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong <[email protected]>
> ---
> net/bpf/test_run.c | 30 +++++++++++++++-
> .../testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_test.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++
> .../testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fexit_test.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 98 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/bpf/test_run.c b/net/bpf/test_run.c
> index c73f246a706f..e12a72311eca 100644
> --- a/net/bpf/test_run.c
> +++ b/net/bpf/test_run.c
> @@ -536,6 +536,27 @@ int noinline bpf_fentry_test6(u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, void *e, u64 f)
> return a + (long)b + c + d + (long)e + f;
> }
>
> +noinline int bpf_fentry_test7(u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, void *e,
> + u64 f, u64 g)
> +{
> + return a + (long)b + c + d + (long)e + f + g;
> +}
> +
> +noinline int bpf_fentry_test12(u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, void *e,
> + u64 f, u64 g, u64 h, u64 i, u64 j,
> + u64 k, u64 l)
> +{
> + return a + (long)b + c + d + (long)e + f + g + h + i + j + k + l;
> +}
> +
> +noinline int bpf_fentry_test14(u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, void *e,
> + u64 f, u64 g, u64 h, u64 i, u64 j,
> + u64 k, u64 l, u64 m, u64 n)
> +{
> + return a + (long)b + c + d + (long)e + f + g + h + i + j + k + l +
> + m + n;
> +}
Please add test func to bpf_testmod instead of here.
On Sat, Jun 3, 2023 at 2:32 AM Alexei Starovoitov
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 2, 2023 at 12:03 AM <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > From: Menglong Dong <[email protected]>
> >
> > Add test7/test12/test14 in fexit_test.c and fentry_test.c to test the
> > fentry and fexit whose target function have 7/12/14 arguments.
> >
> > And the testcases passed:
> >
> > ./test_progs -t fexit
> > $71 fentry_fexit:OK
> > $73/1 fexit_bpf2bpf/target_no_callees:OK
> > $73/2 fexit_bpf2bpf/target_yes_callees:OK
> > $73/3 fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace:OK
> > $73/4 fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace_verify:OK
> > $73/5 fexit_bpf2bpf/func_sockmap_update:OK
> > $73/6 fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace_return_code:OK
> > $73/7 fexit_bpf2bpf/func_map_prog_compatibility:OK
> > $73/8 fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace_multi:OK
> > $73/9 fexit_bpf2bpf/fmod_ret_freplace:OK
> > $73/10 fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace_global_func:OK
> > $73/11 fexit_bpf2bpf/fentry_to_cgroup_bpf:OK
> > $73/12 fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace_progmap:OK
> > $73 fexit_bpf2bpf:OK
> > $74 fexit_sleep:OK
> > $75 fexit_stress:OK
> > $76 fexit_test:OK
> > Summary: 5/12 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
> >
> > ./test_progs -t fentry
> > $71 fentry_fexit:OK
> > $72 fentry_test:OK
> > $140 module_fentry_shadow:OK
> > Summary: 3/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Jiang Biao <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > net/bpf/test_run.c | 30 +++++++++++++++-
> > .../testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_test.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++
> > .../testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fexit_test.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++
> > 3 files changed, 98 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/bpf/test_run.c b/net/bpf/test_run.c
> > index c73f246a706f..e12a72311eca 100644
> > --- a/net/bpf/test_run.c
> > +++ b/net/bpf/test_run.c
> > @@ -536,6 +536,27 @@ int noinline bpf_fentry_test6(u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, void *e, u64 f)
> > return a + (long)b + c + d + (long)e + f;
> > }
> >
> > +noinline int bpf_fentry_test7(u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, void *e,
> > + u64 f, u64 g)
> > +{
> > + return a + (long)b + c + d + (long)e + f + g;
> > +}
> > +
> > +noinline int bpf_fentry_test12(u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, void *e,
> > + u64 f, u64 g, u64 h, u64 i, u64 j,
> > + u64 k, u64 l)
> > +{
> > + return a + (long)b + c + d + (long)e + f + g + h + i + j + k + l;
> > +}
> > +
> > +noinline int bpf_fentry_test14(u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, void *e,
> > + u64 f, u64 g, u64 h, u64 i, u64 j,
> > + u64 k, u64 l, u64 m, u64 n)
> > +{
> > + return a + (long)b + c + d + (long)e + f + g + h + i + j + k + l +
> > + m + n;
> > +}
>
> Please add test func to bpf_testmod instead of here.
Okay!
Thanks!
Menglong Dong