kernel/linux.git/lib/test_bpf.c, branch v4.19.246

bpf/tests: Do not PASS tests without actually testing the result

2021-09-22T09:48:04+00:00

[ Upstream commit 2b7e9f25e590726cca76700ebdb10e92a7a72ca1 ] Each test case can have a set of sub-tests, where each sub-test can run the cBPF/eBPF test snippet with its own data_size and expected result. Before, the end of the sub-test array was indicated by both data_size and result being zero. However, most or all of the internal eBPF tests has a data_size of zero already. When such a test also had an expected value of zero, the test was never run but reported as PASS anyway. Now the test runner always runs the first sub-test, regardless of the data_size and result values. The sub-test array zero-termination only applies for any additional sub-tests. There are other ways fix it of course, but this solution at least removes the surprise of eBPF tests with a zero result always succeeding. Signed-off-by: Johan Almbladh Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210721103822.3755111-1-johan.almbladh@anyfinetworks.com Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

bpf/tests: Fix copy-and-paste error in double word test

2021-09-22T09:48:04+00:00

[ Upstream commit ae7f47041d928b1a2f28717d095b4153c63cbf6a ] This test now operates on DW as stated instead of W, which was already covered by another test. Signed-off-by: Johan Almbladh Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210721104058.3755254-1-johan.almbladh@anyfinetworks.com Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

test_bpf: flag tests that cannot be jited on s390

2018-06-28T21:58:39+00:00

Flag with FLAG_EXPECTED_FAIL the BPF_MAXINSNS tests that cannot be jited on s390 because they exceed BPF_SIZE_MAX and fail when CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON is set. Also set .expected_errcode to -ENOTSUPP so the tests pass in that case. Signed-off-by: Kleber Sacilotto de Souza Acked-by: Song Liu Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann

bpf: add also cbpf long jump test cases with heavy expansion

2018-06-03T14:42:06+00:00

We have one triggering on eBPF but lets also add a cBPF example to make sure we keep tracking them. Also add anther cBPF test running max number of MSH ops. Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Acked-by: Song Liu Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov

bpf: migrate ebpf ld_abs/ld_ind tests to test_verifier

2018-05-03T23:49:19+00:00

Remove all eBPF tests involving LD_ABS/LD_IND from test_bpf.ko. Reason is that the eBPF tests from test_bpf module do not go via BPF verifier and therefore any instruction rewrites from verifier cannot take place. Therefore, move them into test_verifier which runs out of user space, so that verfier can rewrite LD_ABS/LD_IND internally in upcoming patches. It will have the same effect since runtime tests are also performed from there. This also allows to finally unexport bpf_skb_vlan_{push,pop}_proto and keep it internal to core kernel. Additionally, also add further cBPF LD_ABS/LD_IND test coverage into test_bpf.ko suite. Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov

test_bpf: Fix NULL vs IS_ERR() check in test_skb_segment()

2018-03-29T18:33:29+00:00

The skb_segment() function returns error pointers on error. It never returns NULL. Fixes: 76db8087c4c9 ("net: bpf: add a test for skb_segment in test_bpf module") Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann Reviewed-by: Yonghong Song Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

net: bpf: add a test for skb_segment in test_bpf module

2018-03-25T20:46:05+00:00

Without the previous commit, "modprobe test_bpf" will have the following errors: ... [ 98.149165] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [ 98.159362] kernel BUG at net/core/skbuff.c:3667! [ 98.169756] invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP PTI [ 98.179370] Modules linked in: [ 98.179371] test_bpf(+) ... which triggers the bug the previous commit intends to fix. The skbs are constructed to mimic what mlx5 may generate. The packet size/header may not mimic real cases in production. But the processing flow is similar. Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

test_bpf: Fix testing with CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON=y on other arches

2018-03-20T22:04:30+00:00

Function bpf_fill_maxinsns11 is designed to not be able to be JITed on x86_64. So, it fails when CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON=y, and commit 09584b406742 ("bpf: fix selftests/bpf test_kmod.sh failure when CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON=y") makes sure that failure is detected on that case. However, it does not fail on other architectures, which have a different JIT compiler design. So, test_bpf has started to fail to load on those. After this fix, test_bpf loads fine on both x86_64 and ppc64el. Fixes: 09584b406742 ("bpf: fix selftests/bpf test_kmod.sh failure when CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON=y") Signed-off-by: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo Reviewed-by: Yonghong Song Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann

test_bpf: reduce MAX_TESTRUNS

2018-02-28T16:49:18+00:00

For tests that are using the maximal number of BPF instruction, each run takes 20 usec. Looping 10,000 times on them totals 200 ms, which is bad when the loop is not preemptible. test_bpf: #264 BPF_MAXINSNS: Call heavy transformations jited:1 19248 18548 PASS test_bpf: #269 BPF_MAXINSNS: ld_abs+get_processor_id jited:1 20896 PASS Lets divide by ten the number of iterations, so that max latency is 20ms. We could use need_resched() to break the loop earlier if we believe 20 ms is too much. Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann

test_bpf: add a schedule point

2018-02-26T20:06:56+00:00

test_bpf() is taking 1.6 seconds nowadays, it is time to add a schedule point in it. Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann