diff mbox series

[RFC,bpf-next,v4,3/4] selftests/bpf: Correct map_fd to data_fd in tailcalls

Message ID 20230903151448.61696-4-hffilwlqm@gmail.com (mailing list archive)
State Superseded
Delegated to: BPF
Headers show
Series bpf, x64: Fix tailcall infinite loop | expand

Checks

Context Check Description
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-PR success PR summary
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-0 success Logs for ShellCheck
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-5 success Logs for set-matrix
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-1 success Logs for build for aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-4 success Logs for build for x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-3 success Logs for build for x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-2 success Logs for build for s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-25 success Logs for test_verifier on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-24 success Logs for test_verifier on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-26 success Logs for test_verifier on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-27 success Logs for test_verifier on x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-28 success Logs for veristat
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-6 success Logs for test_maps on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-18 success Logs for test_progs_no_alu32_parallel on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-8 success Logs for test_maps on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-17 fail Logs for test_progs_no_alu32 on x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-9 success Logs for test_maps on x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-20 success Logs for test_progs_no_alu32_parallel on x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-21 success Logs for test_progs_parallel on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-23 success Logs for test_progs_parallel on x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-22 success Logs for test_progs_parallel on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-19 success Logs for test_progs_no_alu32_parallel on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-16 fail Logs for test_progs_no_alu32 on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-10 fail Logs for test_progs on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-12 fail Logs for test_progs on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-14 fail Logs for test_progs_no_alu32 on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-13 fail Logs for test_progs on x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-15 fail Logs for test_progs_no_alu32 on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-11 fail Logs for test_progs on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-7 success Logs for test_maps on s390x with gcc
netdev/series_format success Posting correctly formatted
netdev/tree_selection success Clearly marked for bpf-next, async
netdev/fixes_present success Fixes tag not required for -next series
netdev/header_inline success No static functions without inline keyword in header files
netdev/build_32bit success Errors and warnings before: 9 this patch: 9
netdev/cc_maintainers warning 10 maintainers not CCed: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org shuah@kernel.org martin.lau@linux.dev jolsa@kernel.org haoluo@google.com kpsingh@kernel.org sdf@google.com john.fastabend@gmail.com yonghong.song@linux.dev mykolal@fb.com
netdev/build_clang success Errors and warnings before: 9 this patch: 9
netdev/verify_signedoff success Signed-off-by tag matches author and committer
netdev/deprecated_api success None detected
netdev/check_selftest success No net selftest shell script
netdev/verify_fixes success Fixes tag looks correct
netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn success Errors and warnings before: 9 this patch: 9
netdev/checkpatch success total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 48 lines checked
netdev/kdoc success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/source_inline success Was 0 now: 0

Commit Message

Leon Hwang Sept. 3, 2023, 3:14 p.m. UTC 
Get and check data_fd. It should not to check map_fd again.

Fixes: 79d49ba048ec ("bpf, testing: Add various tail call test cases")
Fixes: 3b0379111197 ("selftests/bpf: Add tailcall_bpf2bpf tests")
Fixes: 5e0b0a4c52d3 ("selftests/bpf: Test tail call counting with bpf2bpf and data on stack")
Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <hffilwlqm@gmail.com>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tailcalls.c | 12 ++++++------
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

Comments

Maciej Fijalkowski Sept. 5, 2023, 7:22 p.m. UTC | #1 
On Sun, Sep 03, 2023 at 11:14:47PM +0800, Leon Hwang wrote:
> Get and check data_fd. It should not to check map_fd again.
> 
> Fixes: 79d49ba048ec ("bpf, testing: Add various tail call test cases")
> Fixes: 3b0379111197 ("selftests/bpf: Add tailcall_bpf2bpf tests")
> Fixes: 5e0b0a4c52d3 ("selftests/bpf: Test tail call counting with bpf2bpf and data on stack")
> Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <hffilwlqm@gmail.com>

This could be pulled out of this RFC set and sent separately to bpf tree,
given that Ilya is taking a look at addressing s390 jit.

> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tailcalls.c | 12 ++++++------
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tailcalls.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tailcalls.c
> index 58fe2c586ed76..b20d7f77a5bce 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tailcalls.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tailcalls.c
> @@ -274,7 +274,7 @@ static void test_tailcall_count(const char *which)
>  		return;
>  
>  	data_fd = bpf_map__fd(data_map);
> -	if (CHECK_FAIL(map_fd < 0))
> +	if (CHECK_FAIL(data_fd < 0))
>  		return;
>  
>  	i = 0;
> @@ -355,7 +355,7 @@ static void test_tailcall_4(void)
>  		return;
>  
>  	data_fd = bpf_map__fd(data_map);
> -	if (CHECK_FAIL(map_fd < 0))
> +	if (CHECK_FAIL(data_fd < 0))
>  		return;
>  
>  	for (i = 0; i < bpf_map__max_entries(prog_array); i++) {
> @@ -445,7 +445,7 @@ static void test_tailcall_5(void)
>  		return;
>  
>  	data_fd = bpf_map__fd(data_map);
> -	if (CHECK_FAIL(map_fd < 0))
> +	if (CHECK_FAIL(data_fd < 0))
>  		return;

shouldn't this be 'goto out' ? applies to the rest of the code i believe.

>  
>  	for (i = 0; i < bpf_map__max_entries(prog_array); i++) {
> @@ -634,7 +634,7 @@ static void test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_2(void)
>  		return;
>  
>  	data_fd = bpf_map__fd(data_map);
> -	if (CHECK_FAIL(map_fd < 0))
> +	if (CHECK_FAIL(data_fd < 0))
>  		return;
>  
>  	i = 0;
> @@ -808,7 +808,7 @@ static void test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_4(bool noise)
>  		return;
>  
>  	data_fd = bpf_map__fd(data_map);
> -	if (CHECK_FAIL(map_fd < 0))
> +	if (CHECK_FAIL(data_fd < 0))
>  		return;
>  
>  	i = 0;
> @@ -872,7 +872,7 @@ static void test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_6(void)
>  	ASSERT_EQ(topts.retval, 0, "tailcall retval");
>  
>  	data_fd = bpf_map__fd(obj->maps.bss);
> -	if (!ASSERT_GE(map_fd, 0, "bss map fd"))
> +	if (!ASSERT_GE(data_fd, 0, "bss map fd"))
>  		goto out;
>  
>  	i = 0;
> -- 
> 2.41.0
>
Leon Hwang Sept. 6, 2023, 2:29 a.m. UTC | #2 
On 6/9/23 03:22, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 03, 2023 at 11:14:47PM +0800, Leon Hwang wrote:
>> Get and check data_fd. It should not to check map_fd again.
>>
>> Fixes: 79d49ba048ec ("bpf, testing: Add various tail call test cases")
>> Fixes: 3b0379111197 ("selftests/bpf: Add tailcall_bpf2bpf tests")
>> Fixes: 5e0b0a4c52d3 ("selftests/bpf: Test tail call counting with bpf2bpf and data on stack")
>> Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <hffilwlqm@gmail.com>
> 
> This could be pulled out of this RFC set and sent separately to bpf tree,
> given that Ilya is taking a look at addressing s390 jit.

Yeah, I'll do it.

> 
>> ---
>>  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tailcalls.c | 12 ++++++------
>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tailcalls.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tailcalls.c
>> index 58fe2c586ed76..b20d7f77a5bce 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tailcalls.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tailcalls.c
>> @@ -274,7 +274,7 @@ static void test_tailcall_count(const char *which)
>>  		return;
>>  
>>  	data_fd = bpf_map__fd(data_map);
>> -	if (CHECK_FAIL(map_fd < 0))
>> +	if (CHECK_FAIL(data_fd < 0))
>>  		return;
>>  
>>  	i = 0;
>> @@ -355,7 +355,7 @@ static void test_tailcall_4(void)
>>  		return;
>>  
>>  	data_fd = bpf_map__fd(data_map);
>> -	if (CHECK_FAIL(map_fd < 0))
>> +	if (CHECK_FAIL(data_fd < 0))
>>  		return;
>>  
>>  	for (i = 0; i < bpf_map__max_entries(prog_array); i++) {
>> @@ -445,7 +445,7 @@ static void test_tailcall_5(void)
>>  		return;
>>  
>>  	data_fd = bpf_map__fd(data_map);
>> -	if (CHECK_FAIL(map_fd < 0))
>> +	if (CHECK_FAIL(data_fd < 0))
>>  		return;
> 
> shouldn't this be 'goto out' ? applies to the rest of the code i believe.

Good point. I'll correct some other 'return' to 'goto out' meanwhile.

Thanks,
Leon

> 
>>  
>>  	for (i = 0; i < bpf_map__max_entries(prog_array); i++) {
>> @@ -634,7 +634,7 @@ static void test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_2(void)
>>  		return;
>>  
>>  	data_fd = bpf_map__fd(data_map);
>> -	if (CHECK_FAIL(map_fd < 0))
>> +	if (CHECK_FAIL(data_fd < 0))
>>  		return;
>>  
>>  	i = 0;
>> @@ -808,7 +808,7 @@ static void test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_4(bool noise)
>>  		return;
>>  
>>  	data_fd = bpf_map__fd(data_map);
>> -	if (CHECK_FAIL(map_fd < 0))
>> +	if (CHECK_FAIL(data_fd < 0))
>>  		return;
>>  
>>  	i = 0;
>> @@ -872,7 +872,7 @@ static void test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_6(void)
>>  	ASSERT_EQ(topts.retval, 0, "tailcall retval");
>>  
>>  	data_fd = bpf_map__fd(obj->maps.bss);
>> -	if (!ASSERT_GE(map_fd, 0, "bss map fd"))
>> +	if (!ASSERT_GE(data_fd, 0, "bss map fd"))
>>  		goto out;
>>  
>>  	i = 0;
>> -- 
>> 2.41.0
>>
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tailcalls.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tailcalls.c
index 58fe2c586ed76..b20d7f77a5bce 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tailcalls.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tailcalls.c
@@ -274,7 +274,7 @@  static void test_tailcall_count(const char *which)
 		return;
 
 	data_fd = bpf_map__fd(data_map);
-	if (CHECK_FAIL(map_fd < 0))
+	if (CHECK_FAIL(data_fd < 0))
 		return;
 
 	i = 0;
@@ -355,7 +355,7 @@  static void test_tailcall_4(void)
 		return;
 
 	data_fd = bpf_map__fd(data_map);
-	if (CHECK_FAIL(map_fd < 0))
+	if (CHECK_FAIL(data_fd < 0))
 		return;
 
 	for (i = 0; i < bpf_map__max_entries(prog_array); i++) {
@@ -445,7 +445,7 @@  static void test_tailcall_5(void)
 		return;
 
 	data_fd = bpf_map__fd(data_map);
-	if (CHECK_FAIL(map_fd < 0))
+	if (CHECK_FAIL(data_fd < 0))
 		return;
 
 	for (i = 0; i < bpf_map__max_entries(prog_array); i++) {
@@ -634,7 +634,7 @@  static void test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_2(void)
 		return;
 
 	data_fd = bpf_map__fd(data_map);
-	if (CHECK_FAIL(map_fd < 0))
+	if (CHECK_FAIL(data_fd < 0))
 		return;
 
 	i = 0;
@@ -808,7 +808,7 @@  static void test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_4(bool noise)
 		return;
 
 	data_fd = bpf_map__fd(data_map);
-	if (CHECK_FAIL(map_fd < 0))
+	if (CHECK_FAIL(data_fd < 0))
 		return;
 
 	i = 0;
@@ -872,7 +872,7 @@  static void test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_6(void)
 	ASSERT_EQ(topts.retval, 0, "tailcall retval");
 
 	data_fd = bpf_map__fd(obj->maps.bss);
-	if (!ASSERT_GE(map_fd, 0, "bss map fd"))
+	if (!ASSERT_GE(data_fd, 0, "bss map fd"))
 		goto out;
 
 	i = 0;