#
8c2b5e90 |
|
08-Mar-2023 |
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> |
selftests/bpf: add bpf_for_each(), bpf_for(), and bpf_repeat() macros Add bpf_for_each(), bpf_for(), and bpf_repeat() macros that make writing open-coded iterator-based loops much more convenient and natural. These macros utilize cleanup attribute to ensure proper destruction of the iterator and thanks to that manage to provide the ergonomics that is very close to C language's for() construct. Typical loop would look like: int i; int arr[N]; bpf_for(i, 0, N) { /* verifier will know that i >= 0 && i < N, so could be used to * directly access array elements with no extra checks */ arr[i] = i; } bpf_repeat() is very similar, but it doesn't expose iteration number and is meant as a simple "repeat action N times" loop: bpf_repeat(N) { /* whatever, N times */ } Note that `break` and `continue` statements inside the {} block work as expected. bpf_for_each() is a generalization over any kind of BPF open-coded iterator allowing to use for-each-like approach instead of calling low-level bpf_iter_<type>_{new,next,destroy}() APIs explicitly. E.g.: struct cgroup *cg; bpf_for_each(cgroup, cg, some, input, args) { /* do something with each cg */ } would call (not-yet-implemented) bpf_iter_cgroup_{new,next,destroy}() functions to form a loop over cgroups, where `some, input, args` are passed verbatim into constructor as bpf_iter_cgroup_new(&it, some, input, args). As a first demonstration, add pyperf variant based on the bpf_for() loop. Also clean up a few tests that either included bpf_misc.h header unnecessarily from the user-space, which is unsupported, or included it before any common types are defined (and thus leading to unnecessary compilation warnings, potentially). Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230308184121.1165081-6-andrii@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
#
907300c7 |
|
09-Feb-2023 |
Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com> |
selftests/bpf: Attach to fopen()/fclose() in uprobe_autoattach malloc() and free() may be completely replaced by sanitizers, use fopen() and fclose() instead. Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20230210001210.395194-6-iii@linux.ibm.com
|
#
bc72742b |
|
20-Jan-2023 |
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> |
selftests/bpf: Validate arch-specific argument registers limits Update uprobe_autoattach selftest to validate architecture-specific argument passing through registers. Use new BPF_UPROBE and BPF_URETPROBE, and construct both BPF-side and user-space side in such a way that for different architectures we are fetching and checking different number of arguments, matching architecture-specific limit of how many registers are available for argument passing. Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Tested-by: Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@oracle.com> # arm64 Tested-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com> # s390x Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20230120200914.3008030-12-andrii@kernel.org
|
#
6a12b8e2 |
|
21-Apr-2022 |
Artem Savkov <asavkov@redhat.com> |
selftests/bpf: Fix prog_tests uprobe_autoattach compilation error I am getting the following compilation error for prog_tests/uprobe_autoattach.c: tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_autoattach.c: In function ‘test_uprobe_autoattach’: ./test_progs.h:209:26: error: pointer ‘mem’ may be used after ‘free’ [-Werror=use-after-free] The value of mem is now used in one of the asserts, which is why it may be confusing compilers. However, it is not dereferenced. Silence this by moving free(mem) after the assert block. Fixes: 1717e248014c ("selftests/bpf: Uprobe tests should verify param/return values") Signed-off-by: Artem Savkov <asavkov@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220421132317.1583867-1-asavkov@redhat.com
|
#
1717e248 |
|
05-Apr-2022 |
Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@oracle.com> |
selftests/bpf: Uprobe tests should verify param/return values uprobe/uretprobe tests don't do any validation of arguments/return values, and without this we can't be sure we are attached to the right function, or that we are indeed attached to a uprobe or uretprobe. To fix this record argument and return value for auto-attached functions and ensure these match expectations. Also need to filter by pid to ensure we do not pick up stray malloc()s since auto-attach traces libc system-wide. Suggested-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@oracle.com> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/1649245431-29956-4-git-send-email-alan.maguire@oracle.com
|