Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
CC:     bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Ziljstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "Alexei Starovoitov" <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        "Kernel Team" <Kernel-team@fb.com>,
        john fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        "KP Singh" <kpsingh@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 4/4] selftests/bpf: add bpf_iter test with
 bpf_get_task_stack()
Thread-Topic: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 4/4] selftests/bpf: add bpf_iter test with
 bpf_get_task_stack()
Thread-Index: AQHWS068Ev45veeFRE2swU/r54D7aKjrWAOAgAAt4ICAAAHfgIAACBwA
Date:   Fri, 26 Jun 2020 23:40:58 +0000
Message-ID: <CFBFBF50-FC9C-42C8-A65A-500681B64E8D@fb.com>
References: <20200626001332.1554603-1-songliubraving@fb.com>
 <20200626001332.1554603-5-songliubraving@fb.com>
 <CAEf4Bzb6H3a48S3L4WZtPTMSLZpAe4C5_2aFwJAnNDVLVWDTQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <6B6E4195-BC5C-4A13-80A6-9493469D6A2E@fb.com>
 <CAEf4Bzb543EVJF+nU0X+1JNMaTehgiwx_0V=80W-frBYku0odA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEf4Bzb543EVJF+nU0X+1JNMaTehgiwx_0V=80W-frBYku0odA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <343157150F3E874B846B6CDD218E9EA9@namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 9406ecae-9fe8-495a-9232-08d81a2a60b6
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 26 Jun 2020 23:40:58.4932
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 8ae927fe-1255-47a7-a2af-5f3a069daaa2
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: fpHcjcATU7jAAxh2xm20gUYOEcIxlM2JQS9h9hrAjjstosTFPZm/fpN1tOVCIbe1pk4vuiDMjaP5/+dhnbwt7g==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR15MB2824
X-OriginatorOrg: fb.com
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.216,18.0.687
 definitions=2020-06-26_12:2020-06-26,2020-06-26 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=fb_default_notspam policy=fb_default score=0 lowpriorityscore=0
 mlxlogscore=999 cotscore=-2147483648 mlxscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0
 malwarescore=0 spamscore=0 adultscore=0 priorityscore=1501 suspectscore=0
 clxscore=1015 impostorscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx
 scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2004280000 definitions=main-2006260167
X-FB-Internal: deliver
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


> On Jun 26, 2020, at 4:11 PM, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 4:05 PM Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com> wrote:
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>> On Jun 26, 2020, at 1:21 PM, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com=
> wrote:
>>>=20
>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 5:15 PM Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com> wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>> The new test is similar to other bpf_iter tests.
>>>>=20
>>>> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_iter.c       | 17 ++++++
>>>> .../selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_iter_task_stack.c | 60 +++++++++++++++++++
>>>> 2 files changed, 77 insertions(+)
>>>> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_iter_task_sta=
ck.c
>>>>=20
>>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_iter.c b/tools=
/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_iter.c
>>>> index 87c29dde1cf96..baa83328f810d 100644
>>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_iter.c
>>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_iter.c
>>>> @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@
>>>> #include "bpf_iter_netlink.skel.h"
>>>> #include "bpf_iter_bpf_map.skel.h"
>>>> #include "bpf_iter_task.skel.h"
>>>> +#include "bpf_iter_task_stack.skel.h"
>>>> #include "bpf_iter_task_file.skel.h"
>>>> #include "bpf_iter_test_kern1.skel.h"
>>>> #include "bpf_iter_test_kern2.skel.h"
>>>> @@ -106,6 +107,20 @@ static void test_task(void)
>>>>       bpf_iter_task__destroy(skel);
>>>> }
>>>>=20
>>>> +static void test_task_stack(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       struct bpf_iter_task_stack *skel;
>>>> +
>>>> +       skel =3D bpf_iter_task_stack__open_and_load();
>>>> +       if (CHECK(!skel, "bpf_iter_task_stack__open_and_load",
>>>> +                 "skeleton open_and_load failed\n"))
>>>> +               return;
>>>> +
>>>> +       do_dummy_read(skel->progs.dump_task_stack);
>>>> +
>>>> +       bpf_iter_task_stack__destroy(skel);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> static void test_task_file(void)
>>>> {
>>>>       struct bpf_iter_task_file *skel;
>>>> @@ -392,6 +407,8 @@ void test_bpf_iter(void)
>>>>               test_bpf_map();
>>>>       if (test__start_subtest("task"))
>>>>               test_task();
>>>> +       if (test__start_subtest("task_stack"))
>>>> +               test_task_stack();
>>>>       if (test__start_subtest("task_file"))
>>>>               test_task_file();
>>>>       if (test__start_subtest("anon"))
>>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_iter_task_stack.c b=
/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_iter_task_stack.c
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 0000000000000..83aca5b1a7965
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_iter_task_stack.c
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
>>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>>>> +/* Copyright (c) 2020 Facebook */
>>>> +/* "undefine" structs in vmlinux.h, because we "override" them below =
*/
>>>> +#define bpf_iter_meta bpf_iter_meta___not_used
>>>> +#define bpf_iter__task bpf_iter__task___not_used
>>>> +#include "vmlinux.h"
>>>> +#undef bpf_iter_meta
>>>> +#undef bpf_iter__task
>>>> +#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
>>>> +#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
>>>> +
>>>> +char _license[] SEC("license") =3D "GPL";
>>>> +
>>>> +/* bpf_get_task_stack needs a stackmap to work */
>>>=20
>>> no it doesn't anymore :) please drop
>>=20
>> We still need stack_map_alloc() to call get_callchain_buffers() in this
>> case. Without an active stack map, get_callchain_buffers() may fail.
>=20
> Oh... um... is it possible to do it some other way? It's extremely
> confusing dependency. Does bpf_get_stack() also require stackmap?
>=20

Aha, I thought bpf_get_stack() also requires stackmap, but it doesn't.=20
The fix is in check_helper_call(). Let me do the same for bpf_get_task_stac=
k().=20

Thanks,
Song