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:     Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
CC:     bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "Peter Ziljstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        "Daniel Borkmann" <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
        "john fastabend" <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@chromium.org>,
        "Kernel Team" <Kernel-team@fb.com>,
        "haoluo@google.com" <haoluo@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/4] selftests/bpf: add non-BPF_LSM test for task
 local storage
Thread-Topic: [PATCH bpf-next 2/4] selftests/bpf: add non-BPF_LSM test for
 task local storage
Thread-Index: AQHW5hZK9xMR4omnHkq1KgYEe27pC6oistUAgABY4wA=
Date:   Mon, 11 Jan 2021 22:49:00 +0000
Message-ID: <CC251082-A193-44FD-80BD-C8D0431C7798@fb.com>
References: <20210108231950.3844417-1-songliubraving@fb.com>
 <20210108231950.3844417-3-songliubraving@fb.com>
 <4eac4156-9c81-ff4d-46f5-d45d9d575a16@fb.com>
In-Reply-To: <4eac4156-9c81-ff4d-46f5-d45d9d575a16@fb.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <826D5EC85D7A4745855F1CDB542BBDF5@namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: cca38802-2823-45a1-9220-08d8b6831644
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 11 Jan 2021 22:49:00.2769
 (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: 8kMbWi3CtgWQG3zmZ6sa3Tfjc/jwkxF42PSEsBt9wewVz9vYI8xmyPL/N9IZSBv6i8L5l6FeTbakihQB7Uec0g==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SJ0PR15MB4204
X-OriginatorOrg: fb.com
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.343,18.0.737
 definitions=2021-01-11_34:2021-01-11,2021-01-11 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=fb_default_notspam policy=fb_default score=0 mlxscore=0 suspectscore=0
 clxscore=1015 priorityscore=1501 mlxlogscore=999 lowpriorityscore=0
 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 phishscore=0
 malwarescore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1
 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2101110128
X-FB-Internal: deliver
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


> On Jan 11, 2021, at 9:30 AM, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com> wrote:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On 1/8/21 3:19 PM, Song Liu wrote:
>> Task local storage is enabled for tracing programs. Add a test for it
>> without CONFIG_BPF_LSM.
>> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
>> ---
>>  .../bpf/prog_tests/test_task_local_storage.c  | 34 +++++++++++++++++
>>  .../selftests/bpf/progs/task_local_storage.c  | 37 +++++++++++++++++++
>>  2 files changed, 71 insertions(+)
>>  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_task_loc=
al_storage.c
>>  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/task_local_storage=
.c
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_task_local_stor=
age.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_task_local_storage.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000000000..7de7a154ebbe6
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_task_local_storage.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>> +/* Copyright (c) 2020 Facebook */
>=20
> 2020 -> 2021
>=20
>> +
>> +#include <sys/types.h>
>> +#include <unistd.h>
>> +#include <test_progs.h>
>> +#include "task_local_storage.skel.h"
>> +
>> +static unsigned int duration;
>> +
>> +void test_test_task_local_storage(void)
>> +{
>> +	struct task_local_storage *skel;
>> +	const int count =3D 10;
>> +	int i, err;
>> +
>> +	skel =3D task_local_storage__open_and_load();
>> +
>=20
> Extra line is unnecessary here.
>=20
>> +	if (CHECK(!skel, "skel_open_and_load", "skeleton open and load failed\=
n"))
>> +		return;
>> +
>> +	err =3D task_local_storage__attach(skel);
>> +
>=20
> ditto.
>=20
>> +	if (CHECK(err, "skel_attach", "skeleton attach failed\n"))
>> +		goto out;
>> +
>> +	for (i =3D 0; i < count; i++)
>> +		usleep(1000);
>=20
> Does a smaller usleep value will work? If it is, recommend to have a smal=
ler value here to reduce test_progs running time.

I thought 10ms total was acceptable. But yeah, smaller value should still w=
ork.=20

>=20
>> +	CHECK(skel->bss->value < count, "task_local_storage_value",
>> +	      "task local value too small\n");
>> +
>> +out:
>> +	task_local_storage__destroy(skel);
>> +}
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/task_local_storage.c b/to=
ols/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/task_local_storage.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000000000..807255c5c162d
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/task_local_storage.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>> +/* Copyright (c) 2020 Facebook */
>=20
> 2020 -> 2021
>=20
>> +
>> +#include "vmlinux.h"
>> +#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
>> +#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
>> +
>> +char _license[] SEC("license") =3D "GPL";
>> +
>> +struct local_data {
>> +	__u64 val;
>> +};
>> +
>> +struct {
>> +	__uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_TASK_STORAGE);
>> +	__uint(map_flags, BPF_F_NO_PREALLOC);
>> +	__type(key, int);
>> +	__type(value, struct local_data);
>> +} task_storage_map SEC(".maps");
>> +
>> +int value =3D 0;
>> +
>> +SEC("tp_btf/sched_switch")
>> +int BPF_PROG(on_switch, bool preempt, struct task_struct *prev,
>> +	     struct task_struct *next)
>> +{
>> +	struct local_data *storage;
>=20
> If it possible that we do some filtering based on test_progs pid
> so below bpf_task_storage_get is only called for test_progs process?
> This is more targeted and can avoid counter contributions from
> other unrelated processes and make test_task_local_storage.c result
> comparison more meaningful.

Make sense. Will fix in the next version.=20

>=20
>> +
>> +	storage =3D bpf_task_storage_get(&task_storage_map,
>> +				       next, 0,
>> +				       BPF_LOCAL_STORAGE_GET_F_CREATE);
>> +	if (storage) {
>> +		storage->val++;
>> +		value =3D storage->val;
>> +	}
>> +	return 0;
>> +}