diff mbox series

[RFC,bpf-next,2/4] selftests/bpf: Add re-attach test to fentry_test

Message ID 20210328112629.339266-3-jolsa@kernel.org (mailing list archive)
State RFC
Delegated to: BPF
Headers show
Series bpf: Tracing programs re-attach | expand

Checks

Context Check Description
netdev/cover_letter success Link
netdev/fixes_present success Link
netdev/patch_count success Link
netdev/tree_selection success Clearly marked for bpf-next
netdev/subject_prefix success Link
netdev/cc_maintainers warning 4 maintainers not CCed: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org andrii@kernel.org shuah@kernel.org kpsingh@kernel.org
netdev/source_inline success Was 0 now: 0
netdev/verify_signedoff success Link
netdev/module_param success Was 0 now: 0
netdev/build_32bit success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/kdoc success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/verify_fixes success Link
netdev/checkpatch success total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 77 lines checked
netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/header_inline success Link

Commit Message

Jiri Olsa March 28, 2021, 11:26 a.m. UTC 
Adding the test to re-attach (detach/attach again) tracing
fentry programs, plus check that already linked program can't
be attached again.

Fixing the number of check-ed results, which should be 8.

Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
---
 .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fentry_test.c    | 58 ++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

Comments

Song Liu March 30, 2021, 1:23 a.m. UTC | #1 
> On Mar 28, 2021, at 4:26 AM, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> Adding the test to re-attach (detach/attach again) tracing
> fentry programs, plus check that already linked program can't
> be attached again.
> 
> Fixing the number of check-ed results, which should be 8.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
> 
[...]
> +
> +void test_fentry_test(void)
> +{
> +	struct fentry_test *fentry_skel = NULL;
> +	struct bpf_link *link;
> +	int err;
> +
> +	fentry_skel = fentry_test__open_and_load();
> +	if (CHECK(!fentry_skel, "fentry_skel_load", "fentry skeleton failed\n"))
> +		goto cleanup;
> +
> +	err = fentry_test__attach(fentry_skel);
> +	if (CHECK(err, "fentry_attach", "fentry attach failed: %d\n", err))
> +		goto cleanup;
> +
> +	err = fentry_test(fentry_skel);
> +	if (CHECK(err, "fentry_test", "fentry test failed: %d\n", err))
> +		goto cleanup;
> +
> +	fentry_test__detach(fentry_skel);
> +
> +	/* Re-attach and test again */
> +	err = fentry_test__attach(fentry_skel);
> +	if (CHECK(err, "fentry_attach", "fentry re-attach failed: %d\n", err))
> +		goto cleanup;
> +
> +	link = bpf_program__attach(fentry_skel->progs.test1);
> +	if (CHECK(!IS_ERR(link), "attach_fentry re-attach without detach",
> +		  "err: %ld\n", PTR_ERR(link)))

nit: I guess we shouldn't print PTR_ERR(link) when link is not an error code?
This shouldn't break though. 

Thanks,
Song

> +		goto cleanup;
> +
> +	err = fentry_test(fentry_skel);
> +	CHECK(err, "fentry_test", "fentry test failed: %d\n", err);
> +
> cleanup:
> 	fentry_test__destroy(fentry_skel);
> }
> -- 
> 2.30.2
>
Jiri Olsa March 30, 2021, 8:02 p.m. UTC | #2 
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 01:23:15AM +0000, Song Liu wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Mar 28, 2021, at 4:26 AM, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > Adding the test to re-attach (detach/attach again) tracing
> > fentry programs, plus check that already linked program can't
> > be attached again.
> > 
> > Fixing the number of check-ed results, which should be 8.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
> > 
> [...]
> > +
> > +void test_fentry_test(void)
> > +{
> > +	struct fentry_test *fentry_skel = NULL;
> > +	struct bpf_link *link;
> > +	int err;
> > +
> > +	fentry_skel = fentry_test__open_and_load();
> > +	if (CHECK(!fentry_skel, "fentry_skel_load", "fentry skeleton failed\n"))
> > +		goto cleanup;
> > +
> > +	err = fentry_test__attach(fentry_skel);
> > +	if (CHECK(err, "fentry_attach", "fentry attach failed: %d\n", err))
> > +		goto cleanup;
> > +
> > +	err = fentry_test(fentry_skel);
> > +	if (CHECK(err, "fentry_test", "fentry test failed: %d\n", err))
> > +		goto cleanup;
> > +
> > +	fentry_test__detach(fentry_skel);
> > +
> > +	/* Re-attach and test again */
> > +	err = fentry_test__attach(fentry_skel);
> > +	if (CHECK(err, "fentry_attach", "fentry re-attach failed: %d\n", err))
> > +		goto cleanup;
> > +
> > +	link = bpf_program__attach(fentry_skel->progs.test1);
> > +	if (CHECK(!IS_ERR(link), "attach_fentry re-attach without detach",
> > +		  "err: %ld\n", PTR_ERR(link)))
> 
> nit: I guess we shouldn't print PTR_ERR(link) when link is not an error code?
> This shouldn't break though. 

true, makes no sense.. I'll remove it

thanks,
jirka
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fentry_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fentry_test.c
index 04ebbf1cb390..fa7a9c719659 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fentry_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fentry_test.c
@@ -3,20 +3,13 @@ 
 #include <test_progs.h>
 #include "fentry_test.skel.h"
 
-void test_fentry_test(void)
+static __u32 duration;
+
+static int fentry_test(struct fentry_test *fentry_skel)
 {
-	struct fentry_test *fentry_skel = NULL;
 	int err, prog_fd, i;
-	__u32 duration = 0, retval;
 	__u64 *result;
-
-	fentry_skel = fentry_test__open_and_load();
-	if (CHECK(!fentry_skel, "fentry_skel_load", "fentry skeleton failed\n"))
-		goto cleanup;
-
-	err = fentry_test__attach(fentry_skel);
-	if (CHECK(err, "fentry_attach", "fentry attach failed: %d\n", err))
-		goto cleanup;
+	__u32 retval;
 
 	prog_fd = bpf_program__fd(fentry_skel->progs.test1);
 	err = bpf_prog_test_run(prog_fd, 1, NULL, 0,
@@ -26,12 +19,51 @@  void test_fentry_test(void)
 	      err, errno, retval, duration);
 
 	result = (__u64 *)fentry_skel->bss;
-	for (i = 0; i < 6; i++) {
+	for (i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
 		if (CHECK(result[i] != 1, "result",
 			  "fentry_test%d failed err %lld\n", i + 1, result[i]))
-			goto cleanup;
+			return -1;
 	}
 
+	/* zero results for re-attach test */
+	for (i = 0; i < 8; i++)
+		result[i] = 0;
+	return 0;
+}
+
+void test_fentry_test(void)
+{
+	struct fentry_test *fentry_skel = NULL;
+	struct bpf_link *link;
+	int err;
+
+	fentry_skel = fentry_test__open_and_load();
+	if (CHECK(!fentry_skel, "fentry_skel_load", "fentry skeleton failed\n"))
+		goto cleanup;
+
+	err = fentry_test__attach(fentry_skel);
+	if (CHECK(err, "fentry_attach", "fentry attach failed: %d\n", err))
+		goto cleanup;
+
+	err = fentry_test(fentry_skel);
+	if (CHECK(err, "fentry_test", "fentry test failed: %d\n", err))
+		goto cleanup;
+
+	fentry_test__detach(fentry_skel);
+
+	/* Re-attach and test again */
+	err = fentry_test__attach(fentry_skel);
+	if (CHECK(err, "fentry_attach", "fentry re-attach failed: %d\n", err))
+		goto cleanup;
+
+	link = bpf_program__attach(fentry_skel->progs.test1);
+	if (CHECK(!IS_ERR(link), "attach_fentry re-attach without detach",
+		  "err: %ld\n", PTR_ERR(link)))
+		goto cleanup;
+
+	err = fentry_test(fentry_skel);
+	CHECK(err, "fentry_test", "fentry test failed: %d\n", err);
+
 cleanup:
 	fentry_test__destroy(fentry_skel);
 }