lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jan]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 2/2] selftests: bpf: Add a new test for bare tracepoints
On 01/16/21 18:11, Yonghong Song wrote:
>
>
> On 1/16/21 10:21 AM, Qais Yousef wrote:
> > Reuse module_attach infrastructure to add a new bare tracepoint to check
> > we can attach to it as a raw tracepoint.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>
> > ---
> > .../bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod-events.h | 6 +++++
> > .../selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c | 21 ++++++++++++++-
> > .../selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h | 6 +++++
> > .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/module_attach.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++
> > .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_module_attach.c | 10 +++++++
> > 5 files changed, 69 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod-events.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod-events.h
> > index b83ea448bc79..89c6d58e5dd6 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod-events.h
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod-events.h
> > @@ -28,6 +28,12 @@ TRACE_EVENT(bpf_testmod_test_read,
> > __entry->pid, __entry->comm, __entry->off, __entry->len)
> > );
> > +/* A bare tracepoint with no event associated with it */
> > +DECLARE_TRACE(bpf_testmod_test_write_bare,
> > + TP_PROTO(struct task_struct *task, struct bpf_testmod_test_write_ctx *ctx),
> > + TP_ARGS(task, ctx)
> > +);
> > +
> > #endif /* _BPF_TESTMOD_EVENTS_H */
> > #undef TRACE_INCLUDE_PATH
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
> > index 2df19d73ca49..e900adad2276 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
> > @@ -28,9 +28,28 @@ bpf_testmod_test_read(struct file *file, struct kobject *kobj,
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL(bpf_testmod_test_read);
> > ALLOW_ERROR_INJECTION(bpf_testmod_test_read, ERRNO);
> > +noinline ssize_t
> > +bpf_testmod_test_write(struct file *file, struct kobject *kobj,
> > + struct bin_attribute *bin_attr,
> > + char *buf, loff_t off, size_t len)
> > +{
> > + struct bpf_testmod_test_write_ctx ctx = {
> > + .buf = buf,
> > + .off = off,
> > + .len = len,
> > + };
> > +
> > + trace_bpf_testmod_test_write_bare(current, &ctx);
> > +
> > + return -EIO; /* always fail */
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(bpf_testmod_test_write);
> > +ALLOW_ERROR_INJECTION(bpf_testmod_test_write, ERRNO);
> > +
> > static struct bin_attribute bin_attr_bpf_testmod_file __ro_after_init = {
>
> Do we need to remove __ro_after_init?

I don't think so. The structure should still remain RO AFAIU.

>
> > - .attr = { .name = "bpf_testmod", .mode = 0444, },
> > + .attr = { .name = "bpf_testmod", .mode = 0666, },
> > .read = bpf_testmod_test_read,
> > + .write = bpf_testmod_test_write,
> > };
> > static int bpf_testmod_init(void)
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h
> > index b81adfedb4f6..b3892dc40111 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h
> > @@ -11,4 +11,10 @@ struct bpf_testmod_test_read_ctx {
> > size_t len;
> > };
> > +struct bpf_testmod_test_write_ctx {
> > + char *buf;
> > + loff_t off;
> > + size_t len;
> > +};
> > +
> > #endif /* _BPF_TESTMOD_H */
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/module_attach.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/module_attach.c
> > index 50796b651f72..e4605c0b5af1 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/module_attach.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/module_attach.c
> > @@ -21,9 +21,34 @@ static int trigger_module_test_read(int read_sz)
> > return 0;
> > }
> > +static int trigger_module_test_write(int write_sz)
> > +{
> > + int fd, err;
>
> Init err = 0?

I don't see what difference this makes.

>
> > + char *buf = malloc(write_sz);
> > +
> > + if (!buf)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
>
> Looks like we already non-negative value, so return ENOMEM?

We already set err=-errno. So shouldn't we return negative too?

>
> > +
> > + memset(buf, 'a', write_sz);
> > + buf[write_sz-1] = '\0';
> > +
> > + fd = open("/sys/kernel/bpf_testmod", O_WRONLY);
> > + err = -errno;
> > + if (CHECK(fd < 0, "testmod_file_open", "failed: %d\n", err))
> > + goto out;
>
> Change the above to
> fd = open("/sys/kernel/bpf_testmod", O_WRONLY);
> if (CHECK(fd < 0, "testmod_file_open", "failed: %d\n", errno)) {
> err = -errno;
> goto out;
> }

I kept the code consistent with the definition of trigger_module_test_read().

I'll leave it up to the maintainer to pick up the style changes if they prefer
it this way.

Thanks for the ack and for the review.

Cheers

--
Qais Yousef

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-01-18 13:24    [W:0.101 / U:0.456 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site