diff mbox series

[bpf-next,v4,24/24] selftests/bpf: Add BPF linked list API tests

Message ID 20221103191013.1236066-25-memxor@gmail.com (mailing list archive)
State Superseded
Delegated to: BPF
Headers show
Series Local kptrs, BPF linked lists | expand

Checks

Context Check Description
netdev/tree_selection success Clearly marked for bpf-next, async
netdev/fixes_present success Fixes tag not required for -next series
netdev/subject_prefix success Link
netdev/cover_letter success Series has a cover letter
netdev/patch_count fail Series longer than 15 patches (and no cover letter)
netdev/header_inline success No static functions without inline keyword in header files
netdev/build_32bit success Errors and warnings before: 15 this patch: 15
netdev/cc_maintainers warning 11 maintainers not CCed: sdf@google.com kpsingh@kernel.org mykolal@fb.com haoluo@google.com linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org yhs@fb.com shuah@kernel.org jolsa@kernel.org martin.lau@linux.dev song@kernel.org john.fastabend@gmail.com
netdev/build_clang success Errors and warnings before: 5 this patch: 5
netdev/module_param success Was 0 now: 0
netdev/verify_signedoff success Signed-off-by tag matches author and committer
netdev/check_selftest success No net selftest shell script
netdev/verify_fixes success No Fixes tag
netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn success Errors and warnings before: 15 this patch: 15
netdev/checkpatch fail CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis CHECK: Please don't use multiple blank lines ERROR: Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parentheses WARNING: Prefer __aligned(8) over __attribute__((aligned(8))) WARNING: added, moved or deleted file(s), does MAINTAINERS need updating? WARNING: line length of 101 exceeds 80 columns WARNING: line length of 102 exceeds 80 columns WARNING: line length of 103 exceeds 80 columns WARNING: line length of 104 exceeds 80 columns WARNING: line length of 112 exceeds 80 columns WARNING: line length of 83 exceeds 80 columns WARNING: line length of 84 exceeds 80 columns WARNING: line length of 86 exceeds 80 columns WARNING: line length of 87 exceeds 80 columns WARNING: line length of 91 exceeds 80 columns WARNING: line length of 92 exceeds 80 columns WARNING: line length of 93 exceeds 80 columns WARNING: line length of 94 exceeds 80 columns WARNING: line length of 95 exceeds 80 columns WARNING: line length of 96 exceeds 80 columns
netdev/kdoc success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/source_inline success Was 0 now: 0
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-2 fail Logs for build for s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-1 pending Logs for ${{ matrix.test }} on ${{ matrix.arch }} with ${{ matrix.toolchain }}
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-3 fail Logs for build for s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-4 fail Logs for build for x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-5 fail Logs for build for x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-6 success Logs for llvm-toolchain
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-7 success Logs for set-matrix
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-PR fail merge-conflict

Commit Message

Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi Nov. 3, 2022, 7:10 p.m. UTC
Include various tests covering the success and failure cases. Also, run
the success cases at runtime to verify correctness of linked list
manipulation routines, in addition to ensuring successful verification.

Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
---
 kernel/bpf/helpers.c                          |   5 +-
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/DENYLIST.s390x    |   1 +
 .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/linked_list.c    |  79 +++++
 .../testing/selftests/bpf/progs/linked_list.c | 330 ++++++++++++++++++
 4 files changed, 414 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
 create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/linked_list.c
 create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/linked_list.c

Comments

Dave Marchevsky Nov. 4, 2022, 7:03 a.m. UTC | #1
On 11/3/22 3:10 PM, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:
> Include various tests covering the success and failure cases. Also, run
> the success cases at runtime to verify correctness of linked list
> manipulation routines, in addition to ensuring successful verification.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
> ---

[...]

> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/linked_list.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/linked_list.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..eed0b2c1eb4a
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/linked_list.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,330 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +#include <vmlinux.h>
> +#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
> +#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
> +#include <bpf/bpf_core_read.h>
> +#include "bpf_experimental.h"
> +
> +#ifndef ARRAY_SIZE
> +#define ARRAY_SIZE(x) (sizeof(x) / sizeof((x)[0]))
> +#endif
> +
> +struct bar {
> +	struct bpf_list_node node;
> +	int data;
> +};
> +
> +struct foo {
> +	struct bpf_list_node node;
> +	struct bpf_list_head head __contains(bar, node);
> +	struct bpf_spin_lock lock;
> +	int data;
> +};
> +
> +struct map_value {
> +	struct bpf_list_head head __contains(foo, node);
> +	struct bpf_spin_lock lock;
> +	int data;
> +};
> +
> +struct array_map {
> +	__uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_ARRAY);
> +	__type(key, int);
> +	__type(value, struct map_value);
> +	__uint(max_entries, 1);
> +} array_map SEC(".maps");
> +
> +#define private(name) SEC(".data." #name) __hidden __attribute__((aligned(8)))

This __attribute__((aligned(8))) causes my clang to fail to build this selftest.
It fails with:

  fatal error: error in backend: unable to write nop sequence of 4 bytes

Tracked it down to llvm/lib/Target/BPF/MCTargetDesc/BPFAsmBackend.cpp:

  bool BPFAsmBackend::writeNopData(raw_ostream &OS, uint64_t Count,
                                   const MCSubtargetInfo *STI) const {
    if ((Count % 8) != 0)
      return false;

Presumably since ".data.A" section is PROGBITS the compiler tries to write
4 bytes of nop before / between the variables, but fails.

I'm using a clang built off of a very recent LLVM commit [0]. David Vernet
was able to successfully build the selftests with a clang built from
late August's tree, so maybe it's my clang version or some other toolchain
issue. Which clang did you use to build this?

[0]: github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/2a827e4a988b614bc6f70abe00308ceeb50dcd0a
Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi Nov. 4, 2022, 7:14 a.m. UTC | #2
On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 12:33:46PM IST, Dave Marchevsky wrote:
> On 11/3/22 3:10 PM, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:
> > Include various tests covering the success and failure cases. Also, run
> > the success cases at runtime to verify correctness of linked list
> > manipulation routines, in addition to ensuring successful verification.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
> > ---
>
> [...]
>
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/linked_list.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/linked_list.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..eed0b2c1eb4a
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/linked_list.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,330 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > +#include <vmlinux.h>
> > +#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
> > +#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
> > +#include <bpf/bpf_core_read.h>
> > +#include "bpf_experimental.h"
> > +
> > +#ifndef ARRAY_SIZE
> > +#define ARRAY_SIZE(x) (sizeof(x) / sizeof((x)[0]))
> > +#endif
> > +
> > +struct bar {
> > +	struct bpf_list_node node;
> > +	int data;
> > +};
> > +
> > +struct foo {
> > +	struct bpf_list_node node;
> > +	struct bpf_list_head head __contains(bar, node);
> > +	struct bpf_spin_lock lock;
> > +	int data;
> > +};
> > +
> > +struct map_value {
> > +	struct bpf_list_head head __contains(foo, node);
> > +	struct bpf_spin_lock lock;
> > +	int data;
> > +};
> > +
> > +struct array_map {
> > +	__uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_ARRAY);
> > +	__type(key, int);
> > +	__type(value, struct map_value);
> > +	__uint(max_entries, 1);
> > +} array_map SEC(".maps");
> > +
> > +#define private(name) SEC(".data." #name) __hidden __attribute__((aligned(8)))
>
> This __attribute__((aligned(8))) causes my clang to fail to build this selftest.
> It fails with:
>
>   fatal error: error in backend: unable to write nop sequence of 4 bytes
>
> Tracked it down to llvm/lib/Target/BPF/MCTargetDesc/BPFAsmBackend.cpp:
>
>   bool BPFAsmBackend::writeNopData(raw_ostream &OS, uint64_t Count,
>                                    const MCSubtargetInfo *STI) const {
>     if ((Count % 8) != 0)
>       return false;
>
> Presumably since ".data.A" section is PROGBITS the compiler tries to write
> 4 bytes of nop before / between the variables, but fails.
>
> I'm using a clang built off of a very recent LLVM commit [0]. David Vernet
> was able to successfully build the selftests with a clang built from
> late August's tree, so maybe it's my clang version or some other toolchain
> issue. Which clang did you use to build this?
>

Yes, I get the same ICE on clang nightly as well, specifically for linked_list
test. Then I rebuilt this with clang 14.0.6.

Also, that __attribute__ is necessary because the alignment info in UAPI bpf.h
is lost when it gets dumped to BTF and emitted to vmlinux.h. Since the struct
only has padding bits, the default alignment is 1. Adding named fields is
probably the better solution, which gives it __alignof__(u64).

> [0]: github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/2a827e4a988b614bc6f70abe00308ceeb50dcd0a
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
index 0acd87ed22fc..db4398a5bb35 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
@@ -1839,7 +1839,10 @@  static const struct btf_kfunc_id_set generic_kfunc_set = {
 
 static int __init kfunc_init(void)
 {
-	return register_btf_kfunc_id_set(BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING, &generic_kfunc_set);
+	int ret;
+
+	ret = register_btf_kfunc_id_set(BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING, &generic_kfunc_set);
+	return ret ?: register_btf_kfunc_id_set(BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS, &generic_kfunc_set);
 }
 
 late_initcall(kfunc_init);
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/DENYLIST.s390x b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/DENYLIST.s390x
index be4e3d47ea3e..072243af93b0 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/DENYLIST.s390x
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/DENYLIST.s390x
@@ -33,6 +33,7 @@  ksyms_module                             # test_ksyms_module__open_and_load unex
 ksyms_module_libbpf                      # JIT does not support calling kernel function                                (kfunc)
 ksyms_module_lskel                       # test_ksyms_module_lskel__open_and_load unexpected error: -9                 (?)
 libbpf_get_fd_by_id_opts                 # failed to attach: ERROR: strerror_r(-524)=22                                (trampoline)
+linked_list				 # JIT does not support calling kernel function                                (kfunc)
 lookup_key                               # JIT does not support calling kernel function                                (kfunc)
 lru_bug                                  # prog 'printk': failed to auto-attach: -524
 map_kptr                                 # failed to open_and_load program: -524 (trampoline)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/linked_list.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/linked_list.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..a017bc1b7b0a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/linked_list.c
@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@ 
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+#include <test_progs.h>
+#include <network_helpers.h>
+
+#include "linked_list.skel.h"
+
+static void test_linked_list_success(void)
+{
+	LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_test_run_opts, opts,
+		.data_in = &pkt_v4,
+		.data_size_in = sizeof(pkt_v4),
+		.repeat = 1,
+	);
+	struct linked_list *skel;
+	int key = 0, ret;
+	char buf[32];
+
+	skel = linked_list__open_and_load();
+	if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "linked_list__open_and_load"))
+		return;
+
+	ret = bpf_prog_test_run_opts(bpf_program__fd(skel->progs.map_list_push_pop), &opts);
+	ASSERT_OK(ret, "map_list_push_pop");
+	ASSERT_OK(opts.retval, "map_list_push_pop retval");
+
+	ret = bpf_prog_test_run_opts(bpf_program__fd(skel->progs.global_list_push_pop), &opts);
+	ASSERT_OK(ret, "global_list_push_pop");
+	ASSERT_OK(opts.retval, "global_list_push_pop retval");
+
+	ret = bpf_prog_test_run_opts(bpf_program__fd(skel->progs.global_list_push_pop_unclean), &opts);
+	ASSERT_OK(ret, "global_list_push_pop_unclean");
+	ASSERT_OK(opts.retval, "global_list_push_pop_unclean retval");
+
+	ASSERT_OK(bpf_map_update_elem(bpf_map__fd(skel->maps.data_A), &key, buf, 0),
+		  "check_and_free_fields");
+	ASSERT_OK(bpf_map_update_elem(bpf_map__fd(skel->maps.array_map), &key, buf, 0),
+		  "check_and_free_fields");
+
+	ret = bpf_prog_test_run_opts(bpf_program__fd(skel->progs.map_list_push_pop_multiple), &opts);
+	ASSERT_OK(ret, "map_list_push_pop_multiple");
+	ASSERT_OK(opts.retval, "map_list_push_pop_multiple retval");
+
+	ret = bpf_prog_test_run_opts(bpf_program__fd(skel->progs.global_list_push_pop_multiple), &opts);
+	ASSERT_OK(ret, "global_list_push_pop_multiple");
+	ASSERT_OK(opts.retval, "global_list_push_pop_multiple retval");
+
+	ret = bpf_prog_test_run_opts(bpf_program__fd(skel->progs.global_list_push_pop_multiple_unclean), &opts);
+	ASSERT_OK(ret, "global_list_push_pop_multiple_unclean");
+	ASSERT_OK(opts.retval, "global_list_push_pop_multiple_unclean retval");
+
+	ASSERT_OK(bpf_map_update_elem(bpf_map__fd(skel->maps.data_A), &key, buf, 0),
+		  "check_and_free_fields");
+	ASSERT_OK(bpf_map_update_elem(bpf_map__fd(skel->maps.array_map), &key, buf, 0),
+		  "check_and_free_fields");
+
+	ret = bpf_prog_test_run_opts(bpf_program__fd(skel->progs.map_list_in_list), &opts);
+	ASSERT_OK(ret, "map_list_in_list");
+	ASSERT_OK(opts.retval, "map_list_in_list retval");
+
+	ret = bpf_prog_test_run_opts(bpf_program__fd(skel->progs.global_list_in_list), &opts);
+	ASSERT_OK(ret, "global_list_in_list");
+	ASSERT_OK(opts.retval, "global_list_in_list retval");
+
+	ret = bpf_prog_test_run_opts(bpf_program__fd(skel->progs.global_list_in_list_unclean), &opts);
+	ASSERT_OK(ret, "global_list_in_list_unclean");
+	ASSERT_OK(opts.retval, "global_list_in_list_unclean retval");
+
+	ASSERT_OK(bpf_map_update_elem(bpf_map__fd(skel->maps.data_A), &key, buf, 0),
+		  "check_and_free_fields");
+	ASSERT_OK(bpf_map_update_elem(bpf_map__fd(skel->maps.array_map), &key, buf, 0),
+		  "check_and_free_fields");
+
+	linked_list__destroy(skel);
+}
+
+void test_linked_list(void)
+{
+	test_linked_list_success();
+}
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/linked_list.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/linked_list.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..eed0b2c1eb4a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/linked_list.c
@@ -0,0 +1,330 @@ 
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+#include <vmlinux.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_core_read.h>
+#include "bpf_experimental.h"
+
+#ifndef ARRAY_SIZE
+#define ARRAY_SIZE(x) (sizeof(x) / sizeof((x)[0]))
+#endif
+
+struct bar {
+	struct bpf_list_node node;
+	int data;
+};
+
+struct foo {
+	struct bpf_list_node node;
+	struct bpf_list_head head __contains(bar, node);
+	struct bpf_spin_lock lock;
+	int data;
+};
+
+struct map_value {
+	struct bpf_list_head head __contains(foo, node);
+	struct bpf_spin_lock lock;
+	int data;
+};
+
+struct array_map {
+	__uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_ARRAY);
+	__type(key, int);
+	__type(value, struct map_value);
+	__uint(max_entries, 1);
+} array_map SEC(".maps");
+
+#define private(name) SEC(".data." #name) __hidden __attribute__((aligned(8)))
+
+private(A) static struct bpf_spin_lock glock;
+private(A) static struct bpf_list_head ghead __contains(foo, node);
+private(A) static struct bpf_list_head gghead __contains(foo, node);
+
+static __always_inline int list_push_pop(struct bpf_spin_lock *lock,
+					 struct bpf_list_head *head, bool leave_in_map)
+{
+	struct bpf_list_node *n;
+	struct foo *f;
+
+	f = bpf_obj_new(typeof(*f));
+	if (!f)
+		return 2;
+
+	bpf_spin_lock(lock);
+	n = bpf_list_pop_front(head);
+	bpf_spin_unlock(lock);
+	if (n) {
+		bpf_obj_drop(container_of(n, struct foo, node));
+		bpf_obj_drop(f);
+		return 3;
+	}
+
+	bpf_spin_lock(lock);
+	n = bpf_list_pop_back(head);
+	bpf_spin_unlock(lock);
+	if (n) {
+		bpf_obj_drop(container_of(n, struct foo, node));
+		bpf_obj_drop(f);
+		return 4;
+	}
+
+
+	bpf_spin_lock(lock);
+	f->data = 42;
+	bpf_list_push_front(head, &f->node);
+	bpf_spin_unlock(lock);
+	if (leave_in_map)
+		return 0;
+	bpf_spin_lock(lock);
+	n = bpf_list_pop_back(head);
+	bpf_spin_unlock(lock);
+	if (!n)
+		return 5;
+	f = container_of(n, struct foo, node);
+	if (f->data != 42) {
+		bpf_obj_drop(f);
+		return 6;
+	}
+
+	bpf_spin_lock(lock);
+	f->data = 13;
+	bpf_list_push_front(head, &f->node);
+	bpf_spin_unlock(lock);
+	bpf_spin_lock(lock);
+	n = bpf_list_pop_front(head);
+	bpf_spin_unlock(lock);
+	if (!n)
+		return 7;
+	f = container_of(n, struct foo, node);
+	if (f->data != 13) {
+		bpf_obj_drop(f);
+		return 8;
+	}
+	bpf_obj_drop(f);
+
+	bpf_spin_lock(lock);
+	n = bpf_list_pop_front(head);
+	bpf_spin_unlock(lock);
+	if (n) {
+		bpf_obj_drop(container_of(n, struct foo, node));
+		return 9;
+	}
+
+	bpf_spin_lock(lock);
+	n = bpf_list_pop_back(head);
+	bpf_spin_unlock(lock);
+	if (n) {
+		bpf_obj_drop(container_of(n, struct foo, node));
+		return 10;
+	}
+	return 0;
+}
+
+
+static __always_inline int list_push_pop_multiple(struct bpf_spin_lock *lock,
+						  struct bpf_list_head *head, bool leave_in_map)
+{
+	struct bpf_list_node *n;
+	struct foo *f[8], *pf;
+	int i;
+
+	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(f); i++) {
+		f[i] = bpf_obj_new(typeof(**f));
+		if (!f[i])
+			return 2;
+		f[i]->data = i;
+		bpf_spin_lock(lock);
+		bpf_list_push_front(head, &f[i]->node);
+		bpf_spin_unlock(lock);
+	}
+
+	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(f); i++) {
+		bpf_spin_lock(lock);
+		n = bpf_list_pop_front(head);
+		bpf_spin_unlock(lock);
+		if (!n)
+			return 3;
+		pf = container_of(n, struct foo, node);
+		if (pf->data != (ARRAY_SIZE(f) - i - 1)) {
+			bpf_obj_drop(pf);
+			return 4;
+		}
+		bpf_spin_lock(lock);
+		bpf_list_push_back(head, &pf->node);
+		bpf_spin_unlock(lock);
+	}
+
+	if (leave_in_map)
+		return 0;
+
+	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(f); i++) {
+		bpf_spin_lock(lock);
+		n = bpf_list_pop_back(head);
+		bpf_spin_unlock(lock);
+		if (!n)
+			return 5;
+		pf = container_of(n, struct foo, node);
+		if (pf->data != i) {
+			bpf_obj_drop(pf);
+			return 6;
+		}
+		bpf_obj_drop(pf);
+	}
+	bpf_spin_lock(lock);
+	n = bpf_list_pop_back(head);
+	bpf_spin_unlock(lock);
+	if (n) {
+		bpf_obj_drop(container_of(n, struct foo, node));
+		return 7;
+	}
+
+	bpf_spin_lock(lock);
+	n = bpf_list_pop_front(head);
+	bpf_spin_unlock(lock);
+	if (n) {
+		bpf_obj_drop(container_of(n, struct foo, node));
+		return 8;
+	}
+	return 0;
+}
+
+static __always_inline int list_in_list(struct bpf_spin_lock *lock,
+					struct bpf_list_head *head, bool leave_in_map)
+{
+	struct bpf_list_node *n;
+	struct bar *ba[8], *b;
+	struct foo *f;
+	int i;
+
+	f = bpf_obj_new(typeof(*f));
+	if (!f)
+		return 2;
+	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(ba); i++) {
+		b = bpf_obj_new(typeof(*b));
+		if (!b) {
+			bpf_obj_drop(f);
+			return 3;
+		}
+		b->data = i;
+		bpf_spin_lock(&f->lock);
+		bpf_list_push_back(&f->head, &b->node);
+		bpf_spin_unlock(&f->lock);
+	}
+
+	bpf_spin_lock(lock);
+	f->data = 42;
+	bpf_list_push_front(head, &f->node);
+	bpf_spin_unlock(lock);
+
+	if (leave_in_map)
+		return 0;
+
+	bpf_spin_lock(lock);
+	n = bpf_list_pop_front(head);
+	bpf_spin_unlock(lock);
+	if (!n)
+		return 4;
+	f = container_of(n, struct foo, node);
+	if (f->data != 42) {
+		bpf_obj_drop(f);
+		return 5;
+	}
+
+	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(ba); i++) {
+		bpf_spin_lock(&f->lock);
+		n = bpf_list_pop_front(&f->head);
+		bpf_spin_unlock(&f->lock);
+		if (!n) {
+			bpf_obj_drop(f);
+			return 6;
+		}
+		b = container_of(n, struct bar, node);
+		if (b->data != i) {
+			bpf_obj_drop(f);
+			bpf_obj_drop(b);
+			return 7;
+		}
+		bpf_obj_drop(b);
+	}
+	bpf_spin_lock(&f->lock);
+	n = bpf_list_pop_front(&f->head);
+	bpf_spin_unlock(&f->lock);
+	if (n) {
+		bpf_obj_drop(f);
+		bpf_obj_drop(container_of(n, struct bar, node));
+		return 8;
+	}
+	bpf_obj_drop(f);
+	return 0;
+}
+
+SEC("tc")
+int map_list_push_pop(void *ctx)
+{
+	struct map_value *v;
+
+	v = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&array_map, &(int){0});
+	if (!v)
+		return 1;
+	return list_push_pop(&v->lock, &v->head, false);
+}
+
+SEC("tc")
+int global_list_push_pop(void *ctx)
+{
+	return list_push_pop(&glock, &ghead, false);
+}
+
+SEC("tc")
+int global_list_push_pop_unclean(void *ctx)
+{
+	return list_push_pop(&glock, &gghead, true);
+}
+
+SEC("tc")
+int map_list_push_pop_multiple(void *ctx)
+{
+	struct map_value *v;
+
+	v = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&array_map, &(int){0});
+	if (!v)
+		return 1;
+	return list_push_pop_multiple(&v->lock, &v->head, false);
+}
+
+SEC("tc")
+int global_list_push_pop_multiple(void *ctx)
+{
+	return list_push_pop_multiple(&glock, &ghead, false);
+}
+
+SEC("tc")
+int global_list_push_pop_multiple_unclean(void *ctx)
+{
+	return list_push_pop_multiple(&glock, &gghead, true);
+}
+
+SEC("tc")
+int map_list_in_list(void *ctx)
+{
+	struct map_value *v;
+
+	v = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&array_map, &(int){0});
+	if (!v)
+		return 1;
+	return list_in_list(&v->lock, &v->head, false);
+}
+
+SEC("tc")
+int global_list_in_list(void *ctx)
+{
+	return list_in_list(&glock, &ghead, false);
+}
+
+SEC("tc")
+int global_list_in_list_unclean(void *ctx)
+{
+	return list_in_list(&glock, &gghead, true);
+}
+
+char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";