| Message ID | 1635253800-4459-1-git-send-email-yangtiezhu@loongson.cn (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Delegated to: | BPF |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [bpf-next,v7] test_bpf: Add module parameter test_suite | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-PR | success | PR summary |
| netdev/cover_letter | success | Single patches do not need cover letters |
| netdev/fixes_present | success | Fixes tag not required for -next series |
| netdev/patch_count | success | Link |
| netdev/tree_selection | success | Clearly marked for bpf-next |
| netdev/subject_prefix | success | Link |
| netdev/cc_maintainers | success | CCed 10 of 10 maintainers |
| netdev/source_inline | success | Was 0 now: 0 |
| netdev/verify_signedoff | success | Signed-off-by tag matches author and committer |
| netdev/module_param | fail | Was 0 now: 1 |
| netdev/build_32bit | success | Errors and warnings before: 100 this patch: 100 |
| netdev/kdoc | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
| netdev/verify_fixes | success | No Fixes tag |
| netdev/checkpatch | warning | WARNING: line length of 85 exceeds 80 columns |
| netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn | success | Errors and warnings before: 100 this patch: 100 |
| netdev/header_inline | success | No static functions without inline keyword in header files |
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-next | success | VM_Test |
On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 3:10 PM Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn> wrote: > > 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=<string>: 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 specify > 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. > > Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn> Thank you. One more little thing that I missed before, see comment inline below. With that: Acked-by: Johan Almbladh <johan.almbladh@anyfinetworks.com> Tested-by: Johan Almbladh <johan.almbladh@anyfinetworks.com> > --- > > v7: > -- Rename prepare_bpf_tests() to prepare_test_range(), remove > some unnecessary code, suggested by Johan Almbladh, thank you. > > v6: > -- Compute the valid range once in the beginning of prepare_bpf_tests(), > suggested by Johan Almbladh, thank you. > > v5: > -- Remove some duplicated code, suggested by Johan Almbladh, > thank you. > -- Initialize test_range[2] to {0, INT_MAX}. > -- If test_suite is specified, but test_range is not specified, > set the upper limit of each test_suite to overwrite INT_MAX. > > v4: > -- Fix the following checkpatch issues: > CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis > CHECK: Please don't use multiple blank lines > > ./scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict *.patch > total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 299 lines checked > > the default max-line-length is 100 in ./scripts/checkpatch.pl, > but it seems that the netdev/checkpatch is 80: > https://patchwork.hopto.org/static/nipa/559961/12545157/checkpatch/stdout > > v3: > -- Use test_suite instead of test_type as module parameter > -- Make test_id, test_name and test_range selection applied to each test suite > > v2: > -- Fix typo in the commit message > -- Use my private email to send > > lib/test_bpf.c | 212 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- > 1 file changed, 135 insertions(+), 77 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/lib/test_bpf.c b/lib/test_bpf.c > index e5b10fd..749d8c5 100644 > --- a/lib/test_bpf.c > +++ b/lib/test_bpf.c > @@ -14316,72 +14316,9 @@ module_param_string(test_name, test_name, sizeof(test_name), 0); > static int test_id = -1; > module_param(test_id, int, 0); > > -static int test_range[2] = { 0, ARRAY_SIZE(tests) - 1 }; > +static int test_range[2] = { 0, INT_MAX }; > module_param_array(test_range, int, NULL, 0); > > -static __init int find_test_index(const char *test_name) > -{ > - int i; > - > - for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(tests); i++) { > - if (!strcmp(tests[i].descr, test_name)) > - return i; > - } > - return -1; > -} > - > -static __init int prepare_bpf_tests(void) > -{ > - if (test_id >= 0) { > - /* > - * if a test_id was specified, use test_range to > - * cover only that test. > - */ > - if (test_id >= ARRAY_SIZE(tests)) { > - pr_err("test_bpf: invalid test_id specified.\n"); > - return -EINVAL; > - } > - > - test_range[0] = test_id; > - test_range[1] = test_id; > - } else if (*test_name) { > - /* > - * if a test_name was specified, find it and setup > - * test_range to cover only that test. > - */ > - int idx = find_test_index(test_name); > - > - if (idx < 0) { > - pr_err("test_bpf: no test named '%s' found.\n", > - test_name); > - return -EINVAL; > - } > - test_range[0] = idx; > - test_range[1] = idx; > - } else { > - /* > - * check that the supplied test_range is valid. > - */ > - if (test_range[0] >= ARRAY_SIZE(tests) || > - test_range[1] >= ARRAY_SIZE(tests) || > - test_range[0] < 0 || test_range[1] < 0) { > - pr_err("test_bpf: test_range is out of bound.\n"); > - return -EINVAL; > - } > - > - if (test_range[1] < test_range[0]) { > - pr_err("test_bpf: test_range is ending before it starts.\n"); > - return -EINVAL; > - } > - } > - > - return 0; > -} > - > -static __init void destroy_bpf_tests(void) > -{ > -} > - > static bool exclude_test(int test_id) > { > return test_id < test_range[0] || test_id > test_range[1]; > @@ -14553,6 +14490,10 @@ static __init int test_skb_segment(void) > for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(skb_segment_tests); i++) { > const struct skb_segment_test *test = &skb_segment_tests[i]; > > + cond_resched(); > + if (exclude_test(i)) > + continue; > + > pr_info("#%d %s ", i, test->descr); > > if (test_skb_segment_single(test)) { > @@ -14934,6 +14875,8 @@ static __init int test_tail_calls(struct bpf_array *progs) > int ret; > > cond_resched(); > + if (exclude_test(i)) > + continue; > > pr_info("#%d %s ", i, test->descr); > if (!fp) { > @@ -14966,29 +14909,144 @@ static __init int test_tail_calls(struct bpf_array *progs) > return err_cnt ? -EINVAL : 0; > } > > +static char test_suite[32]; > +module_param_string(test_suite, test_suite, sizeof(test_suite), 0); > + > +static __init int find_test_index(const char *test_name) > +{ > + int i; > + > + if (!strcmp(test_suite, "test_bpf")) { > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(tests); i++) { > + if (!strcmp(tests[i].descr, test_name)) > + return i; > + } > + } > + > + if (!strcmp(test_suite, "test_tail_calls")) { > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(tail_call_tests); i++) { > + if (!strcmp(tail_call_tests[i].descr, test_name)) > + return i; > + } > + } > + > + if (!strcmp(test_suite, "test_skb_segment")) { > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(skb_segment_tests); i++) { > + if (!strcmp(skb_segment_tests[i].descr, test_name)) > + return i; > + } > + } > + > + return -1; > +} > + > +static __init int prepare_test_range(void) > +{ > + int valid_range; > + > + if (!strcmp(test_suite, "test_bpf")) > + valid_range = ARRAY_SIZE(tests); > + else if (!strcmp(test_suite, "test_tail_calls")) > + valid_range = ARRAY_SIZE(tail_call_tests); > + else if (!strcmp(test_suite, "test_skb_segment")) > + valid_range = ARRAY_SIZE(skb_segment_tests); > + else > + return 0; > + > + if (test_id >= 0) { > + /* > + * if a test_id was specified, use test_range to > + * cover only that test. > + */ > + if (test_id >= valid_range) { > + pr_err("test_bpf: invalid test_id specified for '%s' suite.\n", > + test_suite); > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + > + test_range[0] = test_id; > + test_range[1] = test_id; > + } else if (*test_name) { > + /* > + * if a test_name was specified, find it and setup > + * test_range to cover only that test. > + */ > + int idx = find_test_index(test_name); > + > + if (idx < 0) { > + pr_err("test_bpf: no test named '%s' found for '%s' suite.\n", > + test_name, test_suite); > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + test_range[0] = idx; > + test_range[1] = idx; > + } else if (test_range[0] != 0 || test_range[1] != INT_MAX) { > + /* > + * check that the supplied test_range is valid. > + */ > + if (test_range[0] < 0 || test_range[1] >= valid_range) { > + pr_err("test_bpf: test_range is out of bound for '%s' suite.\n", > + test_suite); > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + > + if (test_range[1] < test_range[0]) { > + pr_err("test_bpf: test_range is ending before it starts.\n"); > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + } > + > + return 0; > +} > + > static int __init test_bpf_init(void) > { > struct bpf_array *progs = NULL; > int ret; > > - ret = prepare_bpf_tests(); > + if (strlen(test_suite) && > + strcmp(test_suite, "test_bpf") && > + strcmp(test_suite, "test_tail_calls") && > + strcmp(test_suite, "test_skb_segment")) { > + pr_err("test_bpf: invalid test_suite '%s' specified.\n", test_suite); > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + > + /* > + * if test_suite is not specified, but test_id, test_name or test_range > + * is specified, set 'test_bpf' as the default test suite. > + */ > + if (!strlen(test_suite) && > + (test_id != -1 || strlen(test_name) || > + (test_range[0] != 0 || test_range[1] != INT_MAX))) { > + pr_info("test_bpf: set 'test_bpf' as the default test_suite.\n"); > + strcpy(test_suite, "test_bpf"); Use strscpy(test_suite, "test_bpf", sizeof(test_suite)) instead of strcpy. The strcpy function is unsafe and may overwrite the destination buffer if that is not large enough to hold the string. Won't happen in this case here, but it is better to always use a bounds-checking version when copying strings. That also makes the code more robust to changes, if for example "test_bpf" is renamed to something longer. See Documentation/process/deprecated.rst. > + } > + > + ret = prepare_test_range(); > if (ret < 0) > return ret; > > - ret = test_bpf(); > - destroy_bpf_tests(); > - if (ret) > - return ret; > + if (!strlen(test_suite) || !strcmp(test_suite, "test_bpf")) { > + ret = test_bpf(); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + } > > - ret = prepare_tail_call_tests(&progs); > - if (ret) > - return ret; > - ret = test_tail_calls(progs); > - destroy_tail_call_tests(progs); > - if (ret) > - return ret; > + if (!strlen(test_suite) || !strcmp(test_suite, "test_tail_calls")) { > + ret = prepare_tail_call_tests(&progs); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + ret = test_tail_calls(progs); > + destroy_tail_call_tests(progs); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + } > > - return test_skb_segment(); > + if (!strlen(test_suite) || !strcmp(test_suite, "test_skb_segment")) > + return test_skb_segment(); > + > + return 0; > } > > static void __exit test_bpf_exit(void) > -- > 2.1.0 >
diff --git a/lib/test_bpf.c b/lib/test_bpf.c index e5b10fd..749d8c5 100644 --- a/lib/test_bpf.c +++ b/lib/test_bpf.c @@ -14316,72 +14316,9 @@ module_param_string(test_name, test_name, sizeof(test_name), 0); static int test_id = -1; module_param(test_id, int, 0); -static int test_range[2] = { 0, ARRAY_SIZE(tests) - 1 }; +static int test_range[2] = { 0, INT_MAX }; module_param_array(test_range, int, NULL, 0); -static __init int find_test_index(const char *test_name) -{ - int i; - - for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(tests); i++) { - if (!strcmp(tests[i].descr, test_name)) - return i; - } - return -1; -} - -static __init int prepare_bpf_tests(void) -{ - if (test_id >= 0) { - /* - * if a test_id was specified, use test_range to - * cover only that test. - */ - if (test_id >= ARRAY_SIZE(tests)) { - pr_err("test_bpf: invalid test_id specified.\n"); - return -EINVAL; - } - - test_range[0] = test_id; - test_range[1] = test_id; - } else if (*test_name) { - /* - * if a test_name was specified, find it and setup - * test_range to cover only that test. - */ - int idx = find_test_index(test_name); - - if (idx < 0) { - pr_err("test_bpf: no test named '%s' found.\n", - test_name); - return -EINVAL; - } - test_range[0] = idx; - test_range[1] = idx; - } else { - /* - * check that the supplied test_range is valid. - */ - if (test_range[0] >= ARRAY_SIZE(tests) || - test_range[1] >= ARRAY_SIZE(tests) || - test_range[0] < 0 || test_range[1] < 0) { - pr_err("test_bpf: test_range is out of bound.\n"); - return -EINVAL; - } - - if (test_range[1] < test_range[0]) { - pr_err("test_bpf: test_range is ending before it starts.\n"); - return -EINVAL; - } - } - - return 0; -} - -static __init void destroy_bpf_tests(void) -{ -} - static bool exclude_test(int test_id) { return test_id < test_range[0] || test_id > test_range[1]; @@ -14553,6 +14490,10 @@ static __init int test_skb_segment(void) for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(skb_segment_tests); i++) { const struct skb_segment_test *test = &skb_segment_tests[i]; + cond_resched(); + if (exclude_test(i)) + continue; + pr_info("#%d %s ", i, test->descr); if (test_skb_segment_single(test)) { @@ -14934,6 +14875,8 @@ static __init int test_tail_calls(struct bpf_array *progs) int ret; cond_resched(); + if (exclude_test(i)) + continue; pr_info("#%d %s ", i, test->descr); if (!fp) { @@ -14966,29 +14909,144 @@ static __init int test_tail_calls(struct bpf_array *progs) return err_cnt ? -EINVAL : 0; } +static char test_suite[32]; +module_param_string(test_suite, test_suite, sizeof(test_suite), 0); + +static __init int find_test_index(const char *test_name) +{ + int i; + + if (!strcmp(test_suite, "test_bpf")) { + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(tests); i++) { + if (!strcmp(tests[i].descr, test_name)) + return i; + } + } + + if (!strcmp(test_suite, "test_tail_calls")) { + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(tail_call_tests); i++) { + if (!strcmp(tail_call_tests[i].descr, test_name)) + return i; + } + } + + if (!strcmp(test_suite, "test_skb_segment")) { + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(skb_segment_tests); i++) { + if (!strcmp(skb_segment_tests[i].descr, test_name)) + return i; + } + } + + return -1; +} + +static __init int prepare_test_range(void) +{ + int valid_range; + + if (!strcmp(test_suite, "test_bpf")) + valid_range = ARRAY_SIZE(tests); + else if (!strcmp(test_suite, "test_tail_calls")) + valid_range = ARRAY_SIZE(tail_call_tests); + else if (!strcmp(test_suite, "test_skb_segment")) + valid_range = ARRAY_SIZE(skb_segment_tests); + else + return 0; + + if (test_id >= 0) { + /* + * if a test_id was specified, use test_range to + * cover only that test. + */ + if (test_id >= valid_range) { + pr_err("test_bpf: invalid test_id specified for '%s' suite.\n", + test_suite); + return -EINVAL; + } + + test_range[0] = test_id; + test_range[1] = test_id; + } else if (*test_name) { + /* + * if a test_name was specified, find it and setup + * test_range to cover only that test. + */ + int idx = find_test_index(test_name); + + if (idx < 0) { + pr_err("test_bpf: no test named '%s' found for '%s' suite.\n", + test_name, test_suite); + return -EINVAL; + } + test_range[0] = idx; + test_range[1] = idx; + } else if (test_range[0] != 0 || test_range[1] != INT_MAX) { + /* + * check that the supplied test_range is valid. + */ + if (test_range[0] < 0 || test_range[1] >= valid_range) { + pr_err("test_bpf: test_range is out of bound for '%s' suite.\n", + test_suite); + return -EINVAL; + } + + if (test_range[1] < test_range[0]) { + pr_err("test_bpf: test_range is ending before it starts.\n"); + return -EINVAL; + } + } + + return 0; +} + static int __init test_bpf_init(void) { struct bpf_array *progs = NULL; int ret; - ret = prepare_bpf_tests(); + if (strlen(test_suite) && + strcmp(test_suite, "test_bpf") && + strcmp(test_suite, "test_tail_calls") && + strcmp(test_suite, "test_skb_segment")) { + pr_err("test_bpf: invalid test_suite '%s' specified.\n", test_suite); + return -EINVAL; + } + + /* + * if test_suite is not specified, but test_id, test_name or test_range + * is specified, set 'test_bpf' as the default test suite. + */ + if (!strlen(test_suite) && + (test_id != -1 || strlen(test_name) || + (test_range[0] != 0 || test_range[1] != INT_MAX))) { + pr_info("test_bpf: set 'test_bpf' as the default test_suite.\n"); + strcpy(test_suite, "test_bpf"); + } + + ret = prepare_test_range(); if (ret < 0) return ret; - ret = test_bpf(); - destroy_bpf_tests(); - if (ret) - return ret; + if (!strlen(test_suite) || !strcmp(test_suite, "test_bpf")) { + ret = test_bpf(); + if (ret) + return ret; + } - ret = prepare_tail_call_tests(&progs); - if (ret) - return ret; - ret = test_tail_calls(progs); - destroy_tail_call_tests(progs); - if (ret) - return ret; + if (!strlen(test_suite) || !strcmp(test_suite, "test_tail_calls")) { + ret = prepare_tail_call_tests(&progs); + if (ret) + return ret; + ret = test_tail_calls(progs); + destroy_tail_call_tests(progs); + if (ret) + return ret; + } - return test_skb_segment(); + if (!strlen(test_suite) || !strcmp(test_suite, "test_skb_segment")) + return test_skb_segment(); + + return 0; } static void __exit test_bpf_exit(void)
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=<string>: 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 specify 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. Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn> --- v7: -- Rename prepare_bpf_tests() to prepare_test_range(), remove some unnecessary code, suggested by Johan Almbladh, thank you. v6: -- Compute the valid range once in the beginning of prepare_bpf_tests(), suggested by Johan Almbladh, thank you. v5: -- Remove some duplicated code, suggested by Johan Almbladh, thank you. -- Initialize test_range[2] to {0, INT_MAX}. -- If test_suite is specified, but test_range is not specified, set the upper limit of each test_suite to overwrite INT_MAX. v4: -- Fix the following checkpatch issues: CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis CHECK: Please don't use multiple blank lines ./scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict *.patch total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 299 lines checked the default max-line-length is 100 in ./scripts/checkpatch.pl, but it seems that the netdev/checkpatch is 80: https://patchwork.hopto.org/static/nipa/559961/12545157/checkpatch/stdout v3: -- Use test_suite instead of test_type as module parameter -- Make test_id, test_name and test_range selection applied to each test suite v2: -- Fix typo in the commit message -- Use my private email to send lib/test_bpf.c | 212 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- 1 file changed, 135 insertions(+), 77 deletions(-)