kernel/linux.git/lib/test_bpf.c, branch v6.6.132

bpf/tests: Enhance output on error and fix typos

2023-08-18T15:08:42+00:00

If a testcase returns a wrong (unexpected) value, print the expected and returned value in hex notation in addition to the decimal notation. This is very useful in tests which bit-shift hex values left or right and helped me a lot while developing the JIT compiler for the hppa architecture. Additionally fix two typos: dowrd -> dword, tall calls -> tail calls. Signed-off-by: Helge Deller Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/ZN6ZAAVoWZpsD1Jf@p100

lib/test_bpf: Call page_address() on page acquired with GFP_KERNEL flag

2023-06-29T13:32:25+00:00

generate_test_data() acquires a page with alloc_page(GFP_KERNEL). The GFP_KERNEL is typical for kernel-internal allocations. The caller requires ZONE_NORMAL or a lower zone for direct access. Therefore the page cannot come from ZONE_HIGHMEM. Thus there's no need to map it with kmap(). Also, the kmap() is being deprecated in favor of kmap_local_page() [1]. Hence, use a plain page_address() directly. Since the page passed to the page_address() is not from the highmem zone, the page_address() function will always return a valid kernel virtual address and will not return NULL. Hence, remove the check 'if (!ptr)'. Remove the unused variable 'ptr' and label 'err_free_page'. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220813220034.806698-1-ira.weiny@intel.com/ Reported-by: kernel test robot Suggested-by: Fabio M. De Francesco Signed-off-by: Sumitra Sharma Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Reviewed-by: Fabio M. De Francesco Reviewed-by: Ira Weiny Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20230623151644.GA434468@sumitra.com

bpf/tests: Use struct_size()

2023-05-31T10:58:38+00:00

Use struct_size() instead of hand writing it. This is less verbose and more informative. Signed-off-by: Su Hui Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Yonghong Song Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20230531043251.989312-1-suhui@nfschina.com

net: remove skb->vlan_present

2022-11-12T02:18:05+00:00

skb->vlan_present seems redundant. We can instead derive it from this boolean expression: vlan_present = skb->vlan_proto != 0 || skb->vlan_tci != 0 Add a new union, to access both fields in a single load/store when possible. union { u32 vlan_all; struct { __be16 vlan_proto; __u16 vlan_tci; }; }; This allows following patch to remove a conditional test in GRO stack. Note: We move remcsum_offload to keep TC_AT_INGRESS_MASK and SKB_MONO_DELIVERY_TIME_MASK unchanged. Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet Acked-by: Yonghong Song Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski

test_bpf: fix incorrect netdev features

2022-06-23T02:20:20+00:00

The prototype of .features is netdev_features_t, it should use NETIF_F_LLTX and NETIF_F_HW_VLAN_STAG_TX, not NETIF_F_LLTX_BIT and NETIF_F_HW_VLAN_STAG_TX_BIT. Fixes: cf204a718357 ("bpf, testing: Introduce 'gso_linear_no_head_frag' skb_segment test") Signed-off-by: Jian Shen Acked-by: John Fastabend Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220622135002.8263-1-shenjian15@huawei.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov

bpf, tests: Add load store test case for tail call

2022-03-31T22:27:52+00:00

Add test case to enusre that the caller and callee's fp offsets are correct during tail call (mainly asserting for arm64 JIT). Tested on both big-endian and little-endian arm64 qemu, result: test_bpf: Summary: 1026 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [1014/1014 JIT'ed] test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed] test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED Signed-off-by: Xu Kuohai Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220321152852.2334294-6-xukuohai@huawei.com

bpf, tests: Add tests for BPF_LDX/BPF_STX with different offsets

2022-03-31T22:27:48+00:00

This patch adds tests to verify the behavior of BPF_LDX/BPF_STX + BPF_B/BPF_H/BPF_W/BPF_DW with negative offset, small positive offset, large positive offset, and misaligned offset. Tested on both big-endian and little-endian arm64 qemu, result: test_bpf: Summary: 1026 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [1014/1014 JIT'ed]'] test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 8 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [8/8 JIT'ed] test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED Signed-off-by: Xu Kuohai Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220321152852.2334294-5-xukuohai@huawei.com

bpf: Change value of MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT from 32 to 33

2021-11-16T13:03:15+00:00

In the current code, the actual max tail call count is 33 which is greater than MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT (defined as 32). The actual limit is not consistent with the meaning of MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT and thus confusing at first glance. We can see the historical evolution from commit 04fd61ab36ec ("bpf: allow bpf programs to tail-call other bpf programs") and commit f9dabe016b63 ("bpf: Undo off-by-one in interpreter tail call count limit"). In order to avoid changing existing behavior, the actual limit is 33 now, this is reasonable. After commit 874be05f525e ("bpf, tests: Add tail call test suite"), we can see there exists failed testcase. On all archs when CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON is not set: # echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable # modprobe test_bpf # dmesg | grep -w FAIL Tail call error path, max count reached jited:0 ret 34 != 33 FAIL On some archs: # echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable # modprobe test_bpf # dmesg | grep -w FAIL Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 ret 34 != 33 FAIL Although the above failed testcase has been fixed in commit 18935a72eb25 ("bpf/tests: Fix error in tail call limit tests"), it would still be good to change the value of MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT from 32 to 33 to make the code more readable. The 32-bit x86 JIT was using a limit of 32, just fix the wrong comments and limit to 33 tail calls as the constant MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT updated. For the mips64 JIT, use "ori" instead of "addiu" as suggested by Johan Almbladh. For the riscv JIT, use RV_REG_TCC directly to save one register move as suggested by Björn Töpel. For the other implementations, no function changes, it does not change the current limit 33, the new value of MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT can reflect the actual max tail call count, the related tail call testcases in test_bpf module and selftests can work well for the interpreter and the JIT. Here are the test results on x86_64: # uname -m x86_64 # echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable # modprobe test_bpf test_suite=test_tail_calls # dmesg | tail -1 test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 8 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [0/8 JIT'ed] # rmmod test_bpf # echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable # modprobe test_bpf test_suite=test_tail_calls # dmesg | tail -1 test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 8 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [8/8 JIT'ed] # rmmod test_bpf # ./test_progs -t tailcalls #142 tailcalls:OK Summary: 1/11 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Tested-by: Johan Almbladh Tested-by: Ilya Leoshkevich Acked-by: Björn Töpel Acked-by: Johan Almbladh Acked-by: Ilya Leoshkevich Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/1636075800-3264-1-git-send-email-yangtiezhu@loongson.cn

bpf, tests: Add module parameter test_suite to test_bpf module

2021-10-28T09:41:16+00:00

After commit 9298e63eafea ("bpf/tests: Add exhaustive tests of ALU operand magnitudes"), when modprobe test_bpf.ko with JIT on mips64, there exists segment fault due to the following reason: [...] ALU64_MOV_X: all register value magnitudes jited:1 Break instruction in kernel code[#1] [...] It seems that the related JIT implementations of some test cases in test_bpf() have problems. At this moment, I do not care about the segment fault while I just want to verify the test cases of tail calls. Based on the above background and motivation, add the following module parameter test_suite to the test_bpf.ko: test_suite=: only the specified test suite will be run, the string can be "test_bpf", "test_tail_calls" or "test_skb_segment". If test_suite is not specified, but test_id, test_name or test_range is specified, set 'test_bpf' as the default test suite. This is useful to only test the corresponding test suite when specifying the valid test_suite string. Any invalid test suite will result in -EINVAL being returned and no tests being run. If the test_suite is not specified or specified as empty string, it does not change the current logic, all of the test cases will be run. Here are some test results: # dmesg -c # modprobe test_bpf # dmesg | grep Summary test_bpf: Summary: 1009 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [0/997 JIT'ed] test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 8 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [0/8 JIT'ed] test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED # rmmod test_bpf # dmesg -c # modprobe test_bpf test_suite=test_bpf # dmesg | tail -1 test_bpf: Summary: 1009 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [0/997 JIT'ed] # rmmod test_bpf # dmesg -c # modprobe test_bpf test_suite=test_tail_calls # dmesg test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:0 21 PASS [...] test_bpf: #7 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:0 32 PASS test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 8 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [0/8 JIT'ed] # rmmod test_bpf # dmesg -c # modprobe test_bpf test_suite=test_skb_segment # dmesg test_bpf: #0 gso_with_rx_frags PASS test_bpf: #1 gso_linear_no_head_frag PASS test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED # rmmod test_bpf # dmesg -c # modprobe test_bpf test_id=1 # dmesg test_bpf: test_bpf: set 'test_bpf' as the default test_suite. test_bpf: #1 TXA jited:0 54 51 50 PASS test_bpf: Summary: 1 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [0/1 JIT'ed] # rmmod test_bpf # dmesg -c # modprobe test_bpf test_suite=test_bpf test_name=TXA # dmesg test_bpf: #1 TXA jited:0 54 50 51 PASS test_bpf: Summary: 1 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [0/1 JIT'ed] # rmmod test_bpf # dmesg -c # modprobe test_bpf test_suite=test_tail_calls test_range=6,7 # dmesg test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:0 41 PASS test_bpf: #7 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:0 32 PASS test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [0/2 JIT'ed] # rmmod test_bpf # dmesg -c # modprobe test_bpf test_suite=test_skb_segment test_id=1 # dmesg test_bpf: #1 gso_linear_no_head_frag PASS test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 1 PASSED, 0 FAILED By the way, the above segment fault has been fixed in the latest bpf-next tree which contains the mips64 JIT rework. Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Tested-by: Johan Almbladh Acked-by: Johan Almbladh Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/1635384321-28128-1-git-send-email-yangtiezhu@loongson.cn

bpf, tests: Add more LD_IMM64 tests

2021-10-07T21:51:29+00:00

This patch adds new tests for the two-instruction LD_IMM64. The new tests verify the operation with immediate values of different byte patterns. Mainly intended to cover JITs that want to be clever when loading 64-bit constants. Signed-off-by: Johan Almbladh Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211007143006.634308-1-johan.almbladh@anyfinetworks.com