lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jul]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [bpf-next v3 01/12] selftests/bpf: Print a message when tester could not run a program
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 4:36 AM Krzesimir Nowak <krzesimir@kinvolk.io> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 1:45 AM Andrii Nakryiko
> <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 3:42 PM Krzesimir Nowak <krzesimir@kinvolk.io> wrote:
> > >
> > > This prints a message when the error is about program type being not
> > > supported by the test runner or because of permissions problem. This
> > > is to see if the program we expected to run was actually executed.
> > >
> > > The messages are open-coded because strerror(ENOTSUPP) returns
> > > "Unknown error 524".
> > >
> > > Changes since v2:
> > > - Also print "FAIL" on an unexpected bpf_prog_test_run error, so there
> > > is a corresponding "FAIL" message for each failed test.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Krzesimir Nowak <krzesimir@kinvolk.io>
> > > ---
> > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 17 +++++++++++++----
> > > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> > > index c5514daf8865..b8d065623ead 100644
> > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> > > @@ -831,11 +831,20 @@ static int do_prog_test_run(int fd_prog, bool unpriv, uint32_t expected_val,
> > > tmp, &size_tmp, &retval, NULL);
> > > if (unpriv)
> > > set_admin(false);
> > > - if (err && errno != 524/*ENOTSUPP*/ && errno != EPERM) {
> > > - printf("Unexpected bpf_prog_test_run error ");
> > > - return err;
> > > + if (err) {
> > > + switch (errno) {
> > > + case 524/*ENOTSUPP*/:
> > > + printf("Did not run the program (not supported) ");
> > > + return 0;
> > > + case EPERM:
> > > + printf("Did not run the program (no permission) ");
> >
> > Let's add "SKIP: " prefix to these?
>
> Not sure about it. The important part of the test (the program being
> verified by the kernel's verifier) was still executed, so the test is
> not really skipped.


Ah, I see. So the program was loaded/verifierd, but wasn't test-run.

Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>

>
>
> >
> > > + return 0;
> > > + default:
> > > + printf("FAIL: Unexpected bpf_prog_test_run error (%s) ", strerror(saved_errno));
> > > + return err;
> > > + }
> > > }
> > > - if (!err && retval != expected_val &&
> > > + if (retval != expected_val &&
> > > expected_val != POINTER_VALUE) {
> > > printf("FAIL retval %d != %d ", retval, expected_val);
> > > return 1;
> > > --
> > > 2.20.1
> > >
>
>
>
> --
> Kinvolk GmbH | Adalbertstr.6a, 10999 Berlin | tel: +491755589364
> Geschäftsführer/Directors: Alban Crequy, Chris Kühl, Iago López Galeiras
> Registergericht/Court of registration: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg
> Registernummer/Registration number: HRB 171414 B
> Ust-ID-Nummer/VAT ID number: DE302207000

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-07-12 02:11    [W:0.041 / U:3.392 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site