| Message ID | 20220930110900.75492-1-asavkov@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Delegated to: | BPF |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [bpf-next] selftests/bpf: make libbpf_probe_prog_types testcase aware of kernel configuration | expand |
On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 01:09:00PM +0200, Artem Savkov wrote: > At the moment libbpf_probe_prog_types test iterates over all available > BPF_PROG_TYPE regardless of kernel configuration which can exclude some > of those. Unfortunately there is no direct way to tell which types are > available, but we can look at struct bpf_ctx_onvert to tell which ones > are available. > > Signed-off-by: Artem Savkov <asavkov@redhat.com> > --- > .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/libbpf_probes.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/libbpf_probes.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/libbpf_probes.c > index 9f766ddd946ab..753ddf79cf5e0 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/libbpf_probes.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/libbpf_probes.c > @@ -4,12 +4,29 @@ > #include <test_progs.h> > #include <bpf/btf.h> > > +static int find_type_in_ctx_convert(struct btf *btf, > + const char *prog_type_name, > + const struct btf_type *t) > +{ > + const struct btf_member *m; > + size_t cmplen = strlen(prog_type_name); > + int i, n; > + > + for (m = btf_members(t), i = 0, n = btf_vlen(t); i < n; m++, i++) { > + const char *member_name = btf__str_by_offset(btf, m->name_off); > + > + if (!strncmp(prog_type_name, member_name, cmplen)) > + return 1; > + } > + return 0; > +} > + > void test_libbpf_probe_prog_types(void) > { > struct btf *btf; > - const struct btf_type *t; > + const struct btf_type *t, *context_convert_t; > const struct btf_enum *e; > - int i, n, id; > + int i, n, id, context_convert_id; > > btf = btf__parse("/sys/kernel/btf/vmlinux", NULL); > if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(btf, "btf_parse")) > @@ -23,6 +40,14 @@ void test_libbpf_probe_prog_types(void) > if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(t, "bpf_prog_type_enum")) > goto cleanup; > > + context_convert_id = btf__find_by_name_kind(btf, "bpf_ctx_convert", > + BTF_KIND_STRUCT); > + if (!ASSERT_GT(context_convert_id, 0, "bpf_ctx_convert_id")) > + goto cleanup; > + context_convert_t = btf__type_by_id(btf, context_convert_id); > + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(t, "bpf_ctx_convert_type")) ASSERT_OK_PTR should check context_convert_t ? I wonder if we could traverse bpf_ctx_convert members directly instead of bpf_prog_type enum, but maybe there'd be other issues jirka > + goto cleanup; > + > for (e = btf_enum(t), i = 0, n = btf_vlen(t); i < n; e++, i++) { > const char *prog_type_name = btf__str_by_offset(btf, e->name_off); > enum bpf_prog_type prog_type = (enum bpf_prog_type)e->val; > @@ -31,6 +56,10 @@ void test_libbpf_probe_prog_types(void) > if (prog_type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_UNSPEC) > continue; > > + if (!find_type_in_ctx_convert(btf, prog_type_name, > + context_convert_t)) > + continue; > + > if (!test__start_subtest(prog_type_name)) > continue; > > -- > 2.37.3 >
On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 4:09 AM Artem Savkov <asavkov@redhat.com> wrote: > > At the moment libbpf_probe_prog_types test iterates over all available > BPF_PROG_TYPE regardless of kernel configuration which can exclude some > of those. Unfortunately there is no direct way to tell which types are > available, but we can look at struct bpf_ctx_onvert to tell which ones > are available. > > Signed-off-by: Artem Savkov <asavkov@redhat.com> > --- Many selftests assume correct kernel configuration which is encoded in config and config.<arch> files. So it seems fair to assume that all defined program types are available on kernel-under-test. If someone is running selftests under custom more minimal kernel they can use denylist to ignore specific prog type subtests? > .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/libbpf_probes.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/libbpf_probes.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/libbpf_probes.c > index 9f766ddd946ab..753ddf79cf5e0 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/libbpf_probes.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/libbpf_probes.c > @@ -4,12 +4,29 @@ > #include <test_progs.h> > #include <bpf/btf.h> > > +static int find_type_in_ctx_convert(struct btf *btf, > + const char *prog_type_name, > + const struct btf_type *t) > +{ > + const struct btf_member *m; > + size_t cmplen = strlen(prog_type_name); > + int i, n; > + > + for (m = btf_members(t), i = 0, n = btf_vlen(t); i < n; m++, i++) { > + const char *member_name = btf__str_by_offset(btf, m->name_off); > + > + if (!strncmp(prog_type_name, member_name, cmplen)) > + return 1; > + } > + return 0; > +} > + > void test_libbpf_probe_prog_types(void) > { > struct btf *btf; > - const struct btf_type *t; > + const struct btf_type *t, *context_convert_t; > const struct btf_enum *e; > - int i, n, id; > + int i, n, id, context_convert_id; > > btf = btf__parse("/sys/kernel/btf/vmlinux", NULL); > if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(btf, "btf_parse")) > @@ -23,6 +40,14 @@ void test_libbpf_probe_prog_types(void) > if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(t, "bpf_prog_type_enum")) > goto cleanup; > > + context_convert_id = btf__find_by_name_kind(btf, "bpf_ctx_convert", > + BTF_KIND_STRUCT); > + if (!ASSERT_GT(context_convert_id, 0, "bpf_ctx_convert_id")) > + goto cleanup; > + context_convert_t = btf__type_by_id(btf, context_convert_id); > + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(t, "bpf_ctx_convert_type")) > + goto cleanup; > + > for (e = btf_enum(t), i = 0, n = btf_vlen(t); i < n; e++, i++) { > const char *prog_type_name = btf__str_by_offset(btf, e->name_off); > enum bpf_prog_type prog_type = (enum bpf_prog_type)e->val; > @@ -31,6 +56,10 @@ void test_libbpf_probe_prog_types(void) > if (prog_type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_UNSPEC) > continue; > > + if (!find_type_in_ctx_convert(btf, prog_type_name, > + context_convert_t)) > + continue; > + > if (!test__start_subtest(prog_type_name)) > continue; > > -- > 2.37.3 >
On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 04:06:41PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 4:09 AM Artem Savkov <asavkov@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > At the moment libbpf_probe_prog_types test iterates over all available > > BPF_PROG_TYPE regardless of kernel configuration which can exclude some > > of those. Unfortunately there is no direct way to tell which types are > > available, but we can look at struct bpf_ctx_onvert to tell which ones > > are available. > > > > Signed-off-by: Artem Savkov <asavkov@redhat.com> > > --- > > Many selftests assume correct kernel configuration which is encoded in > config and config.<arch> files. So it seems fair to assume that all > defined program types are available on kernel-under-test. Ok. Wasn't sure if this is the assumption being made. > If someone is running selftests under custom more minimal kernel they > can use denylist to ignore specific prog type subtests? Thanks for the suggestion. Denylist is a bit too broad in this case as it means we'll be disabling the whole libbpf_probe_prog_types test while only a single type is a problem. Looks like we'll have to live with a downstream-only patch in this case.
On Sun, Oct 2, 2022 at 11:56 PM Artem Savkov <asavkov@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 04:06:41PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 4:09 AM Artem Savkov <asavkov@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > At the moment libbpf_probe_prog_types test iterates over all available > > > BPF_PROG_TYPE regardless of kernel configuration which can exclude some > > > of those. Unfortunately there is no direct way to tell which types are > > > available, but we can look at struct bpf_ctx_onvert to tell which ones > > > are available. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Artem Savkov <asavkov@redhat.com> > > > --- > > > > Many selftests assume correct kernel configuration which is encoded in > > config and config.<arch> files. So it seems fair to assume that all > > defined program types are available on kernel-under-test. > > Ok. Wasn't sure if this is the assumption being made. > > > If someone is running selftests under custom more minimal kernel they > > can use denylist to ignore specific prog type subtests? > > Thanks for the suggestion. Denylist is a bit too broad in this case as > it means we'll be disabling the whole libbpf_probe_prog_types test while > only a single type is a problem. Looks like we'll have to live with a > downstream-only patch in this case. Allow/deny lists allow to specify subtests as well, so you can have very granular control. E.g., [vmuser@archvm bpf]$ sudo ./test_progs -a 'libbpf_probe_prog_types/*SK*' Failed to load bpf_testmod.ko into the kernel: -22 WARNING! Selftests relying on bpf_testmod.ko will be skipped. #96/8 libbpf_probe_prog_types/BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SKB:OK #96/14 libbpf_probe_prog_types/BPF_PROG_TYPE_SK_SKB:OK #96/16 libbpf_probe_prog_types/BPF_PROG_TYPE_SK_MSG:OK #96/21 libbpf_probe_prog_types/BPF_PROG_TYPE_SK_REUSEPORT:OK #96/30 libbpf_probe_prog_types/BPF_PROG_TYPE_SK_LOOKUP:OK #96 libbpf_probe_prog_types:OK Summary: 1/5 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED As you can see each program type is a subtest, so you can pick and choose which ones to run. > > -- > Artem >
On Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 05:03:18PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > On Sun, Oct 2, 2022 at 11:56 PM Artem Savkov <asavkov@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 04:06:41PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 4:09 AM Artem Savkov <asavkov@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > At the moment libbpf_probe_prog_types test iterates over all available > > > > BPF_PROG_TYPE regardless of kernel configuration which can exclude some > > > > of those. Unfortunately there is no direct way to tell which types are > > > > available, but we can look at struct bpf_ctx_onvert to tell which ones > > > > are available. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Artem Savkov <asavkov@redhat.com> > > > > --- > > > > > > Many selftests assume correct kernel configuration which is encoded in > > > config and config.<arch> files. So it seems fair to assume that all > > > defined program types are available on kernel-under-test. > > > > Ok. Wasn't sure if this is the assumption being made. > > > > > If someone is running selftests under custom more minimal kernel they > > > can use denylist to ignore specific prog type subtests? > > > > Thanks for the suggestion. Denylist is a bit too broad in this case as > > it means we'll be disabling the whole libbpf_probe_prog_types test while > > only a single type is a problem. Looks like we'll have to live with a > > downstream-only patch in this case. > > Allow/deny lists allow to specify subtests as well, so you can have > very granular control. E.g., > > [vmuser@archvm bpf]$ sudo ./test_progs -a 'libbpf_probe_prog_types/*SK*' > Failed to load bpf_testmod.ko into the kernel: -22 > WARNING! Selftests relying on bpf_testmod.ko will be skipped. > #96/8 libbpf_probe_prog_types/BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SKB:OK > #96/14 libbpf_probe_prog_types/BPF_PROG_TYPE_SK_SKB:OK > #96/16 libbpf_probe_prog_types/BPF_PROG_TYPE_SK_MSG:OK > #96/21 libbpf_probe_prog_types/BPF_PROG_TYPE_SK_REUSEPORT:OK > #96/30 libbpf_probe_prog_types/BPF_PROG_TYPE_SK_LOOKUP:OK > #96 libbpf_probe_prog_types:OK > Summary: 1/5 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED > > > As you can see each program type is a subtest, so you can pick and > choose which ones to run. Right, didn't know it can do that. Thanks for the pointer.
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/libbpf_probes.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/libbpf_probes.c index 9f766ddd946ab..753ddf79cf5e0 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/libbpf_probes.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/libbpf_probes.c @@ -4,12 +4,29 @@ #include <test_progs.h> #include <bpf/btf.h> +static int find_type_in_ctx_convert(struct btf *btf, + const char *prog_type_name, + const struct btf_type *t) +{ + const struct btf_member *m; + size_t cmplen = strlen(prog_type_name); + int i, n; + + for (m = btf_members(t), i = 0, n = btf_vlen(t); i < n; m++, i++) { + const char *member_name = btf__str_by_offset(btf, m->name_off); + + if (!strncmp(prog_type_name, member_name, cmplen)) + return 1; + } + return 0; +} + void test_libbpf_probe_prog_types(void) { struct btf *btf; - const struct btf_type *t; + const struct btf_type *t, *context_convert_t; const struct btf_enum *e; - int i, n, id; + int i, n, id, context_convert_id; btf = btf__parse("/sys/kernel/btf/vmlinux", NULL); if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(btf, "btf_parse")) @@ -23,6 +40,14 @@ void test_libbpf_probe_prog_types(void) if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(t, "bpf_prog_type_enum")) goto cleanup; + context_convert_id = btf__find_by_name_kind(btf, "bpf_ctx_convert", + BTF_KIND_STRUCT); + if (!ASSERT_GT(context_convert_id, 0, "bpf_ctx_convert_id")) + goto cleanup; + context_convert_t = btf__type_by_id(btf, context_convert_id); + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(t, "bpf_ctx_convert_type")) + goto cleanup; + for (e = btf_enum(t), i = 0, n = btf_vlen(t); i < n; e++, i++) { const char *prog_type_name = btf__str_by_offset(btf, e->name_off); enum bpf_prog_type prog_type = (enum bpf_prog_type)e->val; @@ -31,6 +56,10 @@ void test_libbpf_probe_prog_types(void) if (prog_type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_UNSPEC) continue; + if (!find_type_in_ctx_convert(btf, prog_type_name, + context_convert_t)) + continue; + if (!test__start_subtest(prog_type_name)) continue;
At the moment libbpf_probe_prog_types test iterates over all available BPF_PROG_TYPE regardless of kernel configuration which can exclude some of those. Unfortunately there is no direct way to tell which types are available, but we can look at struct bpf_ctx_onvert to tell which ones are available. Signed-off-by: Artem Savkov <asavkov@redhat.com> --- .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/libbpf_probes.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)