| Message ID | 20201128192502.88195-3-dev@der-flo.net (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Delegated to: | BPF |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Improve error handling of verifier tests | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| netdev/tree_selection | success | Not a local patch |
On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 11:29 AM Florian Lehner <dev@der-flo.net> wrote: > > Print a message when the returned error is about a program type being > not supported or because of permission problems. > These messages are expected if the program to test was actually > executed. > > Cc: Krzesimir Nowak <krzesimir@kinvolk.io> > Signed-off-by: Florian Lehner <dev@der-flo.net> > --- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++----- > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c > index ceea9409639e..bd95894b7ea0 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c > @@ -875,19 +875,33 @@ static int do_prog_test_run(int fd_prog, bool unpriv, uint32_t expected_val, > __u8 tmp[TEST_DATA_LEN << 2]; > __u32 size_tmp = sizeof(tmp); > uint32_t retval; > - int err; > + int err, saved_errno; > > if (unpriv) > set_admin(true); > err = bpf_prog_test_run(fd_prog, 1, data, size_data, > tmp, &size_tmp, &retval, NULL); > + saved_errno = errno; > + > if (unpriv) > set_admin(false); > - if (err && errno != 524/*ENOTSUPP*/ && errno != EPERM) { > - printf("Unexpected bpf_prog_test_run error "); > - return err; > + > + if (err) { > + switch (errno) { nit: stick to using saved_errno consistently, set_admin() does a lot of things that can change errno > + case 524/*ENOTSUPP*/: > + printf("Did not run the program (not supported) "); > + return 0; > + case EPERM: > + printf("Did not run the program (no permission) "); > + return 0; This should be ok to ignore *only* in unpriv mode, no? > + default: > + printf("FAIL: Unexpected bpf_prog_test_run error (%s) ", > + strerror(saved_errno)); > + return err; > + } > } > - if (!err && retval != expected_val && > + > + if (retval != expected_val && > expected_val != POINTER_VALUE) { > printf("FAIL retval %d != %d ", retval, expected_val); > return 1; > -- > 2.28.0 >
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c index ceea9409639e..bd95894b7ea0 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c @@ -875,19 +875,33 @@ static int do_prog_test_run(int fd_prog, bool unpriv, uint32_t expected_val, __u8 tmp[TEST_DATA_LEN << 2]; __u32 size_tmp = sizeof(tmp); uint32_t retval; - int err; + int err, saved_errno; if (unpriv) set_admin(true); err = bpf_prog_test_run(fd_prog, 1, data, size_data, tmp, &size_tmp, &retval, NULL); + saved_errno = errno; + if (unpriv) set_admin(false); - if (err && errno != 524/*ENOTSUPP*/ && errno != EPERM) { - printf("Unexpected bpf_prog_test_run error "); - return err; + + if (err) { + switch (errno) { + case 524/*ENOTSUPP*/: + printf("Did not run the program (not supported) "); + return 0; + case EPERM: + printf("Did not run the program (no permission) "); + return 0; + default: + printf("FAIL: Unexpected bpf_prog_test_run error (%s) ", + strerror(saved_errno)); + return err; + } } - if (!err && retval != expected_val && + + if (retval != expected_val && expected_val != POINTER_VALUE) { printf("FAIL retval %d != %d ", retval, expected_val); return 1;
Print a message when the returned error is about a program type being not supported or because of permission problems. These messages are expected if the program to test was actually executed. Cc: Krzesimir Nowak <krzesimir@kinvolk.io> Signed-off-by: Florian Lehner <dev@der-flo.net> --- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++----- 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)