| Message ID | 1634561710-3648-1-git-send-email-yangtiezhu@loongson.cn (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Delegated to: | BPF |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [bpf-next,v6] test_bpf: Add module parameter test_suite | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-PR | success | PR summary |
| netdev/cover_letter | success | Single patches do not need cover letters |
| netdev/fixes_present | success | Fixes tag not required for -next series |
| netdev/patch_count | success | Link |
| netdev/tree_selection | success | Clearly marked for bpf-next |
| netdev/subject_prefix | success | Link |
| netdev/cc_maintainers | success | CCed 10 of 10 maintainers |
| netdev/source_inline | success | Was 0 now: 0 |
| netdev/verify_signedoff | success | Signed-off-by tag matches author and committer |
| netdev/module_param | fail | Was 0 now: 1 |
| netdev/build_32bit | success | Errors and warnings before: 100 this patch: 100 |
| netdev/kdoc | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
| netdev/verify_fixes | success | No Fixes tag |
| netdev/checkpatch | warning | WARNING: line length of 83 exceeds 80 columns WARNING: line length of 85 exceeds 80 columns |
| netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn | success | Errors and warnings before: 100 this patch: 100 |
| netdev/header_inline | success | No static functions without inline keyword in header files |
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-next | success | VM_Test |
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 2:55 PM Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn> wrote: > > After commit 9298e63eafea ("bpf/tests: Add exhaustive tests of ALU > operand magnitudes"), when modprobe test_bpf.ko with jit on mips64, > there exists segment fault due to the following reason: > > ALU64_MOV_X: all register value magnitudes jited:1 > Break instruction in kernel code[#1] > > It seems that the related jit implementations of some test cases > in test_bpf() have problems. At this moment, I do not care about > the segment fault while I just want to verify the test cases of > tail calls. > > Based on the above background and motivation, add the following > module parameter test_suite to the test_bpf.ko: > test_suite=<string>: only the specified test suite will be run, the > string can be "test_bpf", "test_tail_calls" or "test_skb_segment". > > If test_suite is not specified, but test_id, test_name or test_range > is specified, set 'test_bpf' as the default test suite. > > This is useful to only test the corresponding test suite when specify > the valid test_suite string. > > Any invalid test suite will result in -EINVAL being returned and no > tests being run. If the test_suite is not specified or specified as > empty string, it does not change the current logic, all of the test > cases will be run. > > Here are some test results: > # dmesg -c > # modprobe test_bpf > # dmesg | grep Summary > test_bpf: Summary: 1009 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [0/997 JIT'ed] > test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 8 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [0/8 JIT'ed] > test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED > > # rmmod test_bpf > # dmesg -c > # modprobe test_bpf test_suite=test_bpf > # dmesg | tail -1 > test_bpf: Summary: 1009 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [0/997 JIT'ed] > > # rmmod test_bpf > # dmesg -c > # modprobe test_bpf test_suite=test_tail_calls > # dmesg > test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:0 21 PASS > [...] > test_bpf: #7 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:0 32 PASS > test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 8 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [0/8 JIT'ed] > > # rmmod test_bpf > # dmesg -c > # modprobe test_bpf test_suite=test_skb_segment > # dmesg > test_bpf: #0 gso_with_rx_frags PASS > test_bpf: #1 gso_linear_no_head_frag PASS > test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED > > # rmmod test_bpf > # dmesg -c > # modprobe test_bpf test_id=1 > # dmesg > test_bpf: test_bpf: set 'test_bpf' as the default test_suite. > test_bpf: #1 TXA jited:0 54 51 50 PASS > test_bpf: Summary: 1 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [0/1 JIT'ed] > > # rmmod test_bpf > # dmesg -c > # modprobe test_bpf test_suite=test_bpf test_name=TXA > # dmesg > test_bpf: #1 TXA jited:0 54 50 51 PASS > test_bpf: Summary: 1 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [0/1 JIT'ed] > > # rmmod test_bpf > # dmesg -c > # modprobe test_bpf test_suite=test_tail_calls test_range=6,7 > # dmesg > test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:0 41 PASS > test_bpf: #7 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:0 32 PASS > test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [0/2 JIT'ed] > > # rmmod test_bpf > # dmesg -c > # modprobe test_bpf test_suite=test_skb_segment test_id=1 > # dmesg > test_bpf: #1 gso_linear_no_head_frag PASS > test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 1 PASSED, 0 FAILED > > By the way, the above segment fault has been fixed in the latest bpf-next > tree. > > Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn> > --- > > v6: > -- Compute the valid range once in the beginning of prepare_bpf_tests(), > suggested by Johan Almbladh, thank you. > > v5: > -- Remove some duplicated code, suggested by Johan Almbladh, > thank you. > -- Initialize test_range[2] to {0, INT_MAX}. > -- If test_suite is specified, but test_range is not specified, > set the upper limit of each test_suite to overwrite INT_MAX. > > v4: > -- Fix the following checkpatch issues: > CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis > CHECK: Please don't use multiple blank lines > > ./scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict *.patch > total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 299 lines checked > > the default max-line-length is 100 in ./scripts/checkpatch.pl, > but it seems that the netdev/checkpatch is 80: > https://patchwork.hopto.org/static/nipa/559961/12545157/checkpatch/stdout > > v3: > -- Use test_suite instead of test_type as module parameter > -- Make test_id, test_name and test_range selection applied to each test suite > > v2: > -- Fix typo in the commit message > -- Use my private email to send > > lib/test_bpf.c | 230 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------- > 1 file changed, 154 insertions(+), 76 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/lib/test_bpf.c b/lib/test_bpf.c > index e5b10fd..06f9b66 100644 > --- a/lib/test_bpf.c > +++ b/lib/test_bpf.c > @@ -14316,72 +14316,9 @@ module_param_string(test_name, test_name, sizeof(test_name), 0); > static int test_id = -1; > module_param(test_id, int, 0); > > -static int test_range[2] = { 0, ARRAY_SIZE(tests) - 1 }; > +static int test_range[2] = { 0, INT_MAX }; > module_param_array(test_range, int, NULL, 0); > > -static __init int find_test_index(const char *test_name) > -{ > - int i; > - > - for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(tests); i++) { > - if (!strcmp(tests[i].descr, test_name)) > - return i; > - } > - return -1; > -} > - > -static __init int prepare_bpf_tests(void) > -{ > - if (test_id >= 0) { > - /* > - * if a test_id was specified, use test_range to > - * cover only that test. > - */ > - if (test_id >= ARRAY_SIZE(tests)) { > - pr_err("test_bpf: invalid test_id specified.\n"); > - return -EINVAL; > - } > - > - test_range[0] = test_id; > - test_range[1] = test_id; > - } else if (*test_name) { > - /* > - * if a test_name was specified, find it and setup > - * test_range to cover only that test. > - */ > - int idx = find_test_index(test_name); > - > - if (idx < 0) { > - pr_err("test_bpf: no test named '%s' found.\n", > - test_name); > - return -EINVAL; > - } > - test_range[0] = idx; > - test_range[1] = idx; > - } else { > - /* > - * check that the supplied test_range is valid. > - */ > - if (test_range[0] >= ARRAY_SIZE(tests) || > - test_range[1] >= ARRAY_SIZE(tests) || > - test_range[0] < 0 || test_range[1] < 0) { > - pr_err("test_bpf: test_range is out of bound.\n"); > - return -EINVAL; > - } > - > - if (test_range[1] < test_range[0]) { > - pr_err("test_bpf: test_range is ending before it starts.\n"); > - return -EINVAL; > - } > - } > - > - return 0; > -} > - > -static __init void destroy_bpf_tests(void) > -{ > -} > - > static bool exclude_test(int test_id) > { > return test_id < test_range[0] || test_id > test_range[1]; > @@ -14553,6 +14490,10 @@ static __init int test_skb_segment(void) > for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(skb_segment_tests); i++) { > const struct skb_segment_test *test = &skb_segment_tests[i]; > > + cond_resched(); > + if (exclude_test(i)) > + continue; > + > pr_info("#%d %s ", i, test->descr); > > if (test_skb_segment_single(test)) { > @@ -14934,6 +14875,8 @@ static __init int test_tail_calls(struct bpf_array *progs) > int ret; > > cond_resched(); > + if (exclude_test(i)) > + continue; > > pr_info("#%d %s ", i, test->descr); > if (!fp) { > @@ -14966,29 +14909,164 @@ static __init int test_tail_calls(struct bpf_array *progs) > return err_cnt ? -EINVAL : 0; > } > > +static char test_suite[32]; > +module_param_string(test_suite, test_suite, sizeof(test_suite), 0); > + > +static __init int find_test_index(const char *test_name) > +{ > + int i; > + > + if (!strcmp(test_suite, "test_bpf")) { > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(tests); i++) { > + if (!strcmp(tests[i].descr, test_name)) > + return i; > + } > + } > + > + if (!strcmp(test_suite, "test_tail_calls")) { > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(tail_call_tests); i++) { > + if (!strcmp(tail_call_tests[i].descr, test_name)) > + return i; > + } > + } > + > + if (!strcmp(test_suite, "test_skb_segment")) { > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(skb_segment_tests); i++) { > + if (!strcmp(skb_segment_tests[i].descr, test_name)) > + return i; > + } > + } > + > + return -1; > +} > + > +static __init int prepare_bpf_tests(void) > +{ > + int valid_range; > + > + if (!strcmp(test_suite, "test_bpf")) > + valid_range = ARRAY_SIZE(tests); > + else if (!strcmp(test_suite, "test_tail_calls")) > + valid_range = ARRAY_SIZE(tail_call_tests); > + else if (!strcmp(test_suite, "test_skb_segment")) > + valid_range = ARRAY_SIZE(skb_segment_tests); What if none of the above branches are taken? > + > + if (test_id >= 0) { > + /* > + * if a test_id was specified, use test_range to > + * cover only that test. > + */ > + if (test_id >= valid_range) { > + pr_err("test_bpf: invalid test_id specified for '%s' suite.\n", > + test_suite); > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + > + test_range[0] = test_id; > + test_range[1] = test_id; > + } else if (*test_name) { > + /* > + * if a test_name was specified, find it and setup > + * test_range to cover only that test. > + */ > + int idx = find_test_index(test_name); > + > + if (idx < 0) { > + pr_err("test_bpf: no test named '%s' found for '%s' suite.\n", > + test_name, test_suite); > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + test_range[0] = idx; > + test_range[1] = idx; > + } else { Here I would make the "else" branch conditional on test_range being specified. > + /* > + * check that the supplied test_range is valid. > + */ > + if (strlen(test_suite)) { > + if (test_range[0] >= valid_range || > + test_range[1] >= valid_range || > + test_range[0] < 0 || test_range[1] < 0) { It is sufficient to check for test_range[0] < 0 or test_range[1] >= valid_range here, since the bounds ordering is checked below. > + pr_err("test_bpf: test_range is out of bound for '%s' suite.\n", > + test_suite); > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + } > + > + if (test_range[1] < test_range[0]) { > + pr_err("test_bpf: test_range is ending before it starts.\n"); > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + } > + > + return 0; > +} The function above used to prepare the range selection for the "test_bpf" suite. Now, the range selection applies to other suites as well. I would suggest changing the function name to something more descriptive, like prepare_test_range(). > + > +static __init void destroy_bpf_tests(void) > +{ > +} This is not needed. Remove. > + > static int __init test_bpf_init(void) > { > struct bpf_array *progs = NULL; > int ret; > > + if (strlen(test_suite) && > + strcmp(test_suite, "test_bpf") && > + strcmp(test_suite, "test_tail_calls") && > + strcmp(test_suite, "test_skb_segment")) { > + pr_err("test_bpf: invalid test_suite '%s' specified.\n", test_suite); > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + > + /* > + * if test_suite is not specified, but test_id, test_name or test_range > + * is specified, set 'test_bpf' as the default test suite. > + */ > + if (!strlen(test_suite) && > + (test_id != -1 || strlen(test_name) || > + (test_range[0] != 0 || test_range[1] != INT_MAX))) { > + pr_info("test_bpf: set 'test_bpf' as the default test_suite.\n"); > + strcpy(test_suite, "test_bpf"); > + } > + > + /* > + * if test_suite is specified, but test_range is not specified, > + * set the upper limit of each test_suite to overwrite INT_MAX. > + */ > + if (strlen(test_suite) && test_range[0] == 0 && test_range[1] == INT_MAX) { > + if (!strcmp(test_suite, "test_bpf")) > + test_range[1] = ARRAY_SIZE(tests) - 1; > + else if (!strcmp(test_suite, "test_tail_calls")) > + test_range[1] = ARRAY_SIZE(tail_call_tests) - 1; > + else if (!strcmp(test_suite, "test_skb_segment")) > + test_range[1] = ARRAY_SIZE(skb_segment_tests) - 1; > + } The computation above is already performed in another location. It is also not necessary to limit test_range since it is a filter. I would remove it. > + > ret = prepare_bpf_tests(); > if (ret < 0) > return ret; > > - ret = test_bpf(); > - destroy_bpf_tests(); > - if (ret) > - return ret; > + if (!strlen(test_suite) || !strcmp(test_suite, "test_bpf")) { > + ret = test_bpf(); > + destroy_bpf_tests(); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + } > > - ret = prepare_tail_call_tests(&progs); > - if (ret) > - return ret; > - ret = test_tail_calls(progs); > - destroy_tail_call_tests(progs); > - if (ret) > - return ret; > + if (!strlen(test_suite) || !strcmp(test_suite, "test_tail_calls")) { > + ret = prepare_tail_call_tests(&progs); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + ret = test_tail_calls(progs); > + destroy_tail_call_tests(progs); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + } > > - return test_skb_segment(); > + if (!strlen(test_suite) || !strcmp(test_suite, "test_skb_segment")) > + return test_skb_segment(); > + > + return 0; > } > > static void __exit test_bpf_exit(void) > -- > 2.1.0 >
diff --git a/lib/test_bpf.c b/lib/test_bpf.c index e5b10fd..06f9b66 100644 --- a/lib/test_bpf.c +++ b/lib/test_bpf.c @@ -14316,72 +14316,9 @@ module_param_string(test_name, test_name, sizeof(test_name), 0); static int test_id = -1; module_param(test_id, int, 0); -static int test_range[2] = { 0, ARRAY_SIZE(tests) - 1 }; +static int test_range[2] = { 0, INT_MAX }; module_param_array(test_range, int, NULL, 0); -static __init int find_test_index(const char *test_name) -{ - int i; - - for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(tests); i++) { - if (!strcmp(tests[i].descr, test_name)) - return i; - } - return -1; -} - -static __init int prepare_bpf_tests(void) -{ - if (test_id >= 0) { - /* - * if a test_id was specified, use test_range to - * cover only that test. - */ - if (test_id >= ARRAY_SIZE(tests)) { - pr_err("test_bpf: invalid test_id specified.\n"); - return -EINVAL; - } - - test_range[0] = test_id; - test_range[1] = test_id; - } else if (*test_name) { - /* - * if a test_name was specified, find it and setup - * test_range to cover only that test. - */ - int idx = find_test_index(test_name); - - if (idx < 0) { - pr_err("test_bpf: no test named '%s' found.\n", - test_name); - return -EINVAL; - } - test_range[0] = idx; - test_range[1] = idx; - } else { - /* - * check that the supplied test_range is valid. - */ - if (test_range[0] >= ARRAY_SIZE(tests) || - test_range[1] >= ARRAY_SIZE(tests) || - test_range[0] < 0 || test_range[1] < 0) { - pr_err("test_bpf: test_range is out of bound.\n"); - return -EINVAL; - } - - if (test_range[1] < test_range[0]) { - pr_err("test_bpf: test_range is ending before it starts.\n"); - return -EINVAL; - } - } - - return 0; -} - -static __init void destroy_bpf_tests(void) -{ -} - static bool exclude_test(int test_id) { return test_id < test_range[0] || test_id > test_range[1]; @@ -14553,6 +14490,10 @@ static __init int test_skb_segment(void) for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(skb_segment_tests); i++) { const struct skb_segment_test *test = &skb_segment_tests[i]; + cond_resched(); + if (exclude_test(i)) + continue; + pr_info("#%d %s ", i, test->descr); if (test_skb_segment_single(test)) { @@ -14934,6 +14875,8 @@ static __init int test_tail_calls(struct bpf_array *progs) int ret; cond_resched(); + if (exclude_test(i)) + continue; pr_info("#%d %s ", i, test->descr); if (!fp) { @@ -14966,29 +14909,164 @@ static __init int test_tail_calls(struct bpf_array *progs) return err_cnt ? -EINVAL : 0; } +static char test_suite[32]; +module_param_string(test_suite, test_suite, sizeof(test_suite), 0); + +static __init int find_test_index(const char *test_name) +{ + int i; + + if (!strcmp(test_suite, "test_bpf")) { + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(tests); i++) { + if (!strcmp(tests[i].descr, test_name)) + return i; + } + } + + if (!strcmp(test_suite, "test_tail_calls")) { + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(tail_call_tests); i++) { + if (!strcmp(tail_call_tests[i].descr, test_name)) + return i; + } + } + + if (!strcmp(test_suite, "test_skb_segment")) { + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(skb_segment_tests); i++) { + if (!strcmp(skb_segment_tests[i].descr, test_name)) + return i; + } + } + + return -1; +} + +static __init int prepare_bpf_tests(void) +{ + int valid_range; + + if (!strcmp(test_suite, "test_bpf")) + valid_range = ARRAY_SIZE(tests); + else if (!strcmp(test_suite, "test_tail_calls")) + valid_range = ARRAY_SIZE(tail_call_tests); + else if (!strcmp(test_suite, "test_skb_segment")) + valid_range = ARRAY_SIZE(skb_segment_tests); + + if (test_id >= 0) { + /* + * if a test_id was specified, use test_range to + * cover only that test. + */ + if (test_id >= valid_range) { + pr_err("test_bpf: invalid test_id specified for '%s' suite.\n", + test_suite); + return -EINVAL; + } + + test_range[0] = test_id; + test_range[1] = test_id; + } else if (*test_name) { + /* + * if a test_name was specified, find it and setup + * test_range to cover only that test. + */ + int idx = find_test_index(test_name); + + if (idx < 0) { + pr_err("test_bpf: no test named '%s' found for '%s' suite.\n", + test_name, test_suite); + return -EINVAL; + } + test_range[0] = idx; + test_range[1] = idx; + } else { + /* + * check that the supplied test_range is valid. + */ + if (strlen(test_suite)) { + if (test_range[0] >= valid_range || + test_range[1] >= valid_range || + test_range[0] < 0 || test_range[1] < 0) { + pr_err("test_bpf: test_range is out of bound for '%s' suite.\n", + test_suite); + return -EINVAL; + } + } + + if (test_range[1] < test_range[0]) { + pr_err("test_bpf: test_range is ending before it starts.\n"); + return -EINVAL; + } + } + + return 0; +} + +static __init void destroy_bpf_tests(void) +{ +} + static int __init test_bpf_init(void) { struct bpf_array *progs = NULL; int ret; + if (strlen(test_suite) && + strcmp(test_suite, "test_bpf") && + strcmp(test_suite, "test_tail_calls") && + strcmp(test_suite, "test_skb_segment")) { + pr_err("test_bpf: invalid test_suite '%s' specified.\n", test_suite); + return -EINVAL; + } + + /* + * if test_suite is not specified, but test_id, test_name or test_range + * is specified, set 'test_bpf' as the default test suite. + */ + if (!strlen(test_suite) && + (test_id != -1 || strlen(test_name) || + (test_range[0] != 0 || test_range[1] != INT_MAX))) { + pr_info("test_bpf: set 'test_bpf' as the default test_suite.\n"); + strcpy(test_suite, "test_bpf"); + } + + /* + * if test_suite is specified, but test_range is not specified, + * set the upper limit of each test_suite to overwrite INT_MAX. + */ + if (strlen(test_suite) && test_range[0] == 0 && test_range[1] == INT_MAX) { + if (!strcmp(test_suite, "test_bpf")) + test_range[1] = ARRAY_SIZE(tests) - 1; + else if (!strcmp(test_suite, "test_tail_calls")) + test_range[1] = ARRAY_SIZE(tail_call_tests) - 1; + else if (!strcmp(test_suite, "test_skb_segment")) + test_range[1] = ARRAY_SIZE(skb_segment_tests) - 1; + } + ret = prepare_bpf_tests(); if (ret < 0) return ret; - ret = test_bpf(); - destroy_bpf_tests(); - if (ret) - return ret; + if (!strlen(test_suite) || !strcmp(test_suite, "test_bpf")) { + ret = test_bpf(); + destroy_bpf_tests(); + if (ret) + return ret; + } - ret = prepare_tail_call_tests(&progs); - if (ret) - return ret; - ret = test_tail_calls(progs); - destroy_tail_call_tests(progs); - if (ret) - return ret; + if (!strlen(test_suite) || !strcmp(test_suite, "test_tail_calls")) { + ret = prepare_tail_call_tests(&progs); + if (ret) + return ret; + ret = test_tail_calls(progs); + destroy_tail_call_tests(progs); + if (ret) + return ret; + } - return test_skb_segment(); + if (!strlen(test_suite) || !strcmp(test_suite, "test_skb_segment")) + return test_skb_segment(); + + return 0; } static void __exit test_bpf_exit(void)
After commit 9298e63eafea ("bpf/tests: Add exhaustive tests of ALU operand magnitudes"), when modprobe test_bpf.ko with jit on mips64, there exists segment fault due to the following reason: ALU64_MOV_X: all register value magnitudes jited:1 Break instruction in kernel code[#1] It seems that the related jit implementations of some test cases in test_bpf() have problems. At this moment, I do not care about the segment fault while I just want to verify the test cases of tail calls. Based on the above background and motivation, add the following module parameter test_suite to the test_bpf.ko: test_suite=<string>: only the specified test suite will be run, the string can be "test_bpf", "test_tail_calls" or "test_skb_segment". If test_suite is not specified, but test_id, test_name or test_range is specified, set 'test_bpf' as the default test suite. This is useful to only test the corresponding test suite when specify the valid test_suite string. Any invalid test suite will result in -EINVAL being returned and no tests being run. If the test_suite is not specified or specified as empty string, it does not change the current logic, all of the test cases will be run. Here are some test results: # dmesg -c # modprobe test_bpf # dmesg | grep Summary test_bpf: Summary: 1009 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [0/997 JIT'ed] test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 8 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [0/8 JIT'ed] test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED # rmmod test_bpf # dmesg -c # modprobe test_bpf test_suite=test_bpf # dmesg | tail -1 test_bpf: Summary: 1009 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [0/997 JIT'ed] # rmmod test_bpf # dmesg -c # modprobe test_bpf test_suite=test_tail_calls # dmesg test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:0 21 PASS [...] test_bpf: #7 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:0 32 PASS test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 8 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [0/8 JIT'ed] # rmmod test_bpf # dmesg -c # modprobe test_bpf test_suite=test_skb_segment # dmesg test_bpf: #0 gso_with_rx_frags PASS test_bpf: #1 gso_linear_no_head_frag PASS test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED # rmmod test_bpf # dmesg -c # modprobe test_bpf test_id=1 # dmesg test_bpf: test_bpf: set 'test_bpf' as the default test_suite. test_bpf: #1 TXA jited:0 54 51 50 PASS test_bpf: Summary: 1 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [0/1 JIT'ed] # rmmod test_bpf # dmesg -c # modprobe test_bpf test_suite=test_bpf test_name=TXA # dmesg test_bpf: #1 TXA jited:0 54 50 51 PASS test_bpf: Summary: 1 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [0/1 JIT'ed] # rmmod test_bpf # dmesg -c # modprobe test_bpf test_suite=test_tail_calls test_range=6,7 # dmesg test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:0 41 PASS test_bpf: #7 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:0 32 PASS test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [0/2 JIT'ed] # rmmod test_bpf # dmesg -c # modprobe test_bpf test_suite=test_skb_segment test_id=1 # dmesg test_bpf: #1 gso_linear_no_head_frag PASS test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 1 PASSED, 0 FAILED By the way, the above segment fault has been fixed in the latest bpf-next tree. Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn> --- v6: -- Compute the valid range once in the beginning of prepare_bpf_tests(), suggested by Johan Almbladh, thank you. v5: -- Remove some duplicated code, suggested by Johan Almbladh, thank you. -- Initialize test_range[2] to {0, INT_MAX}. -- If test_suite is specified, but test_range is not specified, set the upper limit of each test_suite to overwrite INT_MAX. v4: -- Fix the following checkpatch issues: CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis CHECK: Please don't use multiple blank lines ./scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict *.patch total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 299 lines checked the default max-line-length is 100 in ./scripts/checkpatch.pl, but it seems that the netdev/checkpatch is 80: https://patchwork.hopto.org/static/nipa/559961/12545157/checkpatch/stdout v3: -- Use test_suite instead of test_type as module parameter -- Make test_id, test_name and test_range selection applied to each test suite v2: -- Fix typo in the commit message -- Use my private email to send lib/test_bpf.c | 230 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------- 1 file changed, 154 insertions(+), 76 deletions(-)