| Message ID | 20230808162755.392606-1-eddyz87@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | 898f55f50a00f56dac1ef55f5478c10a7511d0a6 |
| Delegated to: | BPF |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [bpf-next] selftests/bpf: relax expected log messages to allow emitting BPF_ST | expand |
On 8/8/23 9:27 AM, Eduard Zingerman wrote: > Update [1] to LLVM BPF backend seeks to enable generation of BPF_ST > instruction when CPUv4 is selected. This affects expected log messages > for the following selftests: > - log_fixup/missing_map > - spin_lock/lock_id_mapval_preserve > - spin_lock/lock_id_innermapval_preserve > > Expected messages in these tests hard-code instruction numbers for BPF > programs compiled from C. These instruction numbers change when > BPF_ST is allowed because single BPF_ST instruction replaces a pair of > BPF_MOV/BPF_STX instructions, e.g.: > > r1 = 42; > *(u32 *)(r10 - 8) = r1; ---> *(u32 *)(r10 - 8) = 42; > > This commit updates expected log messages to avoid matching specific > instruction numbers (program position still could be uniquely > identified). > > [1] https://reviews.llvm.org/D140804 > "[BPF] support for BPF_ST instruction in codegen" > > Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com> > --- > .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/log_fixup.c | 2 +- > .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/spin_lock.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++--- > 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/log_fixup.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/log_fixup.c > index dba71d98a227..effd78b2a657 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/log_fixup.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/log_fixup.c > @@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ static void missing_map(void) > ASSERT_FALSE(bpf_map__autocreate(skel->maps.missing_map), "missing_map_autocreate"); > > ASSERT_HAS_SUBSTR(log_buf, > - "8: <invalid BPF map reference>\n" > + ": <invalid BPF map reference>\n" > "BPF map 'missing_map' is referenced but wasn't created\n", > "log_buf"); > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/spin_lock.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/spin_lock.c > index d9270bd3d920..f29c08d93beb 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/spin_lock.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/spin_lock.c > @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@ > // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > +#include <regex.h> > #include <test_progs.h> > #include <network_helpers.h> > > @@ -19,12 +20,16 @@ static struct { > "; R1_w=map_value(off=0,ks=4,vs=4,imm=0)\n2: (85) call bpf_this_cpu_ptr#154\n" > "R1 type=map_value expected=percpu_ptr_" }, > { "lock_id_mapval_preserve", > - "8: (bf) r1 = r0 ; R0_w=map_value(id=1,off=0,ks=4,vs=8,imm=0) " > - "R1_w=map_value(id=1,off=0,ks=4,vs=8,imm=0)\n9: (85) call bpf_this_cpu_ptr#154\n" > + "[0-9]\\+: (bf) r1 = r0 ;" > + " R0_w=map_value(id=1,off=0,ks=4,vs=8,imm=0)" > + " R1_w=map_value(id=1,off=0,ks=4,vs=8,imm=0)\n" > + "[0-9]\\+: (85) call bpf_this_cpu_ptr#154\n" > "R1 type=map_value expected=percpu_ptr_" }, > { "lock_id_innermapval_preserve", > - "13: (bf) r1 = r0 ; R0=map_value(id=2,off=0,ks=4,vs=8,imm=0) " > - "R1_w=map_value(id=2,off=0,ks=4,vs=8,imm=0)\n14: (85) call bpf_this_cpu_ptr#154\n" > + "[0-9]\\+: (bf) r1 = r0 ;" > + " R0=map_value(id=2,off=0,ks=4,vs=8,imm=0)" > + " R1_w=map_value(id=2,off=0,ks=4,vs=8,imm=0)\n" > + "[0-9]\\+: (85) call bpf_this_cpu_ptr#154\n" > "R1 type=map_value expected=percpu_ptr_" }, > { "lock_id_mismatch_kptr_kptr", "bpf_spin_unlock of different lock" }, > { "lock_id_mismatch_kptr_global", "bpf_spin_unlock of different lock" }, > @@ -45,6 +50,24 @@ static struct { > { "lock_id_mismatch_innermapval_mapval", "bpf_spin_unlock of different lock" }, > }; > > +static int match_regex(const char *pattern, const char *string) > +{ > + int err, rc; > + regex_t re; > + > + err = regcomp(&re, pattern, REG_NOSUB); > + if (err) { > + char errbuf[512]; > + > + regerror(err, &re, errbuf, sizeof(errbuf)); > + PRINT_FAIL("Can't compile regex: %s\n", errbuf); > + return -1; > + } > + rc = regexec(&re, string, 0, NULL, 0); > + regfree(&re); > + return rc == 0 ? 1 : 0; > +} > + > static void test_spin_lock_fail_prog(const char *prog_name, const char *err_msg) > { > LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_object_open_opts, opts, .kernel_log_buf = log_buf, > @@ -74,7 +97,11 @@ static void test_spin_lock_fail_prog(const char *prog_name, const char *err_msg) > goto end; > } > > - if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(strstr(log_buf, err_msg), "expected error message")) { > + ret = match_regex(err_msg, log_buf); > + if (!ASSERT_GE(ret, 0, "match_regex")) Should this be ASSERT_GT(ret, 0) or ASSERT_EQ(ret, 1)? If IIUC, regexec return 0 means a successful match. So in 'match_regex', a successful match will return 1, right? > + goto end; > + > + if (!ASSERT_TRUE(ret, "no match for expected error message")) { > fprintf(stderr, "Expected: %s\n", err_msg); > fprintf(stderr, "Verifier: %s\n", log_buf); > }
On Tue, 2023-08-08 at 15:51 -0700, Yonghong Song wrote: > > On 8/8/23 9:27 AM, Eduard Zingerman wrote: > > Update [1] to LLVM BPF backend seeks to enable generation of BPF_ST > > instruction when CPUv4 is selected. This affects expected log messages > > for the following selftests: > > - log_fixup/missing_map > > - spin_lock/lock_id_mapval_preserve > > - spin_lock/lock_id_innermapval_preserve > > > > Expected messages in these tests hard-code instruction numbers for BPF > > programs compiled from C. These instruction numbers change when > > BPF_ST is allowed because single BPF_ST instruction replaces a pair of > > BPF_MOV/BPF_STX instructions, e.g.: > > > > r1 = 42; > > *(u32 *)(r10 - 8) = r1; ---> *(u32 *)(r10 - 8) = 42; > > > > This commit updates expected log messages to avoid matching specific > > instruction numbers (program position still could be uniquely > > identified). > > > > [1] https://reviews.llvm.org/D140804 > > "[BPF] support for BPF_ST instruction in codegen" > > > > Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com> > > --- > > .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/log_fixup.c | 2 +- > > .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/spin_lock.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++--- > > 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/log_fixup.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/log_fixup.c > > index dba71d98a227..effd78b2a657 100644 > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/log_fixup.c > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/log_fixup.c > > @@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ static void missing_map(void) > > ASSERT_FALSE(bpf_map__autocreate(skel->maps.missing_map), "missing_map_autocreate"); > > > > ASSERT_HAS_SUBSTR(log_buf, > > - "8: <invalid BPF map reference>\n" > > + ": <invalid BPF map reference>\n" > > "BPF map 'missing_map' is referenced but wasn't created\n", > > "log_buf"); > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/spin_lock.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/spin_lock.c > > index d9270bd3d920..f29c08d93beb 100644 > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/spin_lock.c > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/spin_lock.c > > @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@ > > // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > +#include <regex.h> > > #include <test_progs.h> > > #include <network_helpers.h> > > > > @@ -19,12 +20,16 @@ static struct { > > "; R1_w=map_value(off=0,ks=4,vs=4,imm=0)\n2: (85) call bpf_this_cpu_ptr#154\n" > > "R1 type=map_value expected=percpu_ptr_" }, > > { "lock_id_mapval_preserve", > > - "8: (bf) r1 = r0 ; R0_w=map_value(id=1,off=0,ks=4,vs=8,imm=0) " > > - "R1_w=map_value(id=1,off=0,ks=4,vs=8,imm=0)\n9: (85) call bpf_this_cpu_ptr#154\n" > > + "[0-9]\\+: (bf) r1 = r0 ;" > > + " R0_w=map_value(id=1,off=0,ks=4,vs=8,imm=0)" > > + " R1_w=map_value(id=1,off=0,ks=4,vs=8,imm=0)\n" > > + "[0-9]\\+: (85) call bpf_this_cpu_ptr#154\n" > > "R1 type=map_value expected=percpu_ptr_" }, > > { "lock_id_innermapval_preserve", > > - "13: (bf) r1 = r0 ; R0=map_value(id=2,off=0,ks=4,vs=8,imm=0) " > > - "R1_w=map_value(id=2,off=0,ks=4,vs=8,imm=0)\n14: (85) call bpf_this_cpu_ptr#154\n" > > + "[0-9]\\+: (bf) r1 = r0 ;" > > + " R0=map_value(id=2,off=0,ks=4,vs=8,imm=0)" > > + " R1_w=map_value(id=2,off=0,ks=4,vs=8,imm=0)\n" > > + "[0-9]\\+: (85) call bpf_this_cpu_ptr#154\n" > > "R1 type=map_value expected=percpu_ptr_" }, > > { "lock_id_mismatch_kptr_kptr", "bpf_spin_unlock of different lock" }, > > { "lock_id_mismatch_kptr_global", "bpf_spin_unlock of different lock" }, > > @@ -45,6 +50,24 @@ static struct { > > { "lock_id_mismatch_innermapval_mapval", "bpf_spin_unlock of different lock" }, > > }; > > > > +static int match_regex(const char *pattern, const char *string) > > +{ > > + int err, rc; > > + regex_t re; > > + > > + err = regcomp(&re, pattern, REG_NOSUB); > > + if (err) { > > + char errbuf[512]; > > + > > + regerror(err, &re, errbuf, sizeof(errbuf)); > > + PRINT_FAIL("Can't compile regex: %s\n", errbuf); > > + return -1; > > + } > > + rc = regexec(&re, string, 0, NULL, 0); > > + regfree(&re); > > + return rc == 0 ? 1 : 0; > > +} > > + > > static void test_spin_lock_fail_prog(const char *prog_name, const char *err_msg) > > { > > LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_object_open_opts, opts, .kernel_log_buf = log_buf, > > @@ -74,7 +97,11 @@ static void test_spin_lock_fail_prog(const char *prog_name, const char *err_msg) > > goto end; > > } > > > > - if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(strstr(log_buf, err_msg), "expected error message")) { > > + ret = match_regex(err_msg, log_buf); > > + if (!ASSERT_GE(ret, 0, "match_regex")) > > Should this be ASSERT_GT(ret, 0) or ASSERT_EQ(ret, 1)? > If IIUC, regexec return 0 means a successful match. > So in 'match_regex', a successful match will return 1, right? Right `match_regex` has three possible return values: . -1 if regex could not be compiled . 0 if regex is ok but match fails . 1 if regex is ok and match is found I check for -1 in this ASSERT_GE, and for 1 in the ASSERT_TRUE right below in order to have two separate error messages. But maybe that is not necessary as I already have PRINT_FAIL in the match_regex for -1 exit. So it would be possible to figure out what failed: regcomp or regexec even if I replace ASSERT_GE/ASSERT_TRUE with a single ASSERT_TRUE (or ASSERT_EQ(ret, 1)) as you suggest. > > > + goto end; > > + > > + if (!ASSERT_TRUE(ret, "no match for expected error message")) { > > fprintf(stderr, "Expected: %s\n", err_msg); > > fprintf(stderr, "Verifier: %s\n", log_buf); > > }
On 8/8/23 4:04 PM, Eduard Zingerman wrote: > On Tue, 2023-08-08 at 15:51 -0700, Yonghong Song wrote: >> >> On 8/8/23 9:27 AM, Eduard Zingerman wrote: >>> Update [1] to LLVM BPF backend seeks to enable generation of BPF_ST >>> instruction when CPUv4 is selected. This affects expected log messages >>> for the following selftests: >>> - log_fixup/missing_map >>> - spin_lock/lock_id_mapval_preserve >>> - spin_lock/lock_id_innermapval_preserve >>> >>> Expected messages in these tests hard-code instruction numbers for BPF >>> programs compiled from C. These instruction numbers change when >>> BPF_ST is allowed because single BPF_ST instruction replaces a pair of >>> BPF_MOV/BPF_STX instructions, e.g.: >>> >>> r1 = 42; >>> *(u32 *)(r10 - 8) = r1; ---> *(u32 *)(r10 - 8) = 42; >>> >>> This commit updates expected log messages to avoid matching specific >>> instruction numbers (program position still could be uniquely >>> identified). >>> >>> [1] https://reviews.llvm.org/D140804 >>> "[BPF] support for BPF_ST instruction in codegen" >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com> >>> --- >>> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/log_fixup.c | 2 +- >>> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/spin_lock.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++--- >>> 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/log_fixup.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/log_fixup.c >>> index dba71d98a227..effd78b2a657 100644 >>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/log_fixup.c >>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/log_fixup.c >>> @@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ static void missing_map(void) >>> ASSERT_FALSE(bpf_map__autocreate(skel->maps.missing_map), "missing_map_autocreate"); >>> >>> ASSERT_HAS_SUBSTR(log_buf, >>> - "8: <invalid BPF map reference>\n" >>> + ": <invalid BPF map reference>\n" >>> "BPF map 'missing_map' is referenced but wasn't created\n", >>> "log_buf"); >>> >>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/spin_lock.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/spin_lock.c >>> index d9270bd3d920..f29c08d93beb 100644 >>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/spin_lock.c >>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/spin_lock.c >>> @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@ >>> // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 >>> +#include <regex.h> >>> #include <test_progs.h> >>> #include <network_helpers.h> >>> >>> @@ -19,12 +20,16 @@ static struct { >>> "; R1_w=map_value(off=0,ks=4,vs=4,imm=0)\n2: (85) call bpf_this_cpu_ptr#154\n" >>> "R1 type=map_value expected=percpu_ptr_" }, >>> { "lock_id_mapval_preserve", >>> - "8: (bf) r1 = r0 ; R0_w=map_value(id=1,off=0,ks=4,vs=8,imm=0) " >>> - "R1_w=map_value(id=1,off=0,ks=4,vs=8,imm=0)\n9: (85) call bpf_this_cpu_ptr#154\n" >>> + "[0-9]\\+: (bf) r1 = r0 ;" >>> + " R0_w=map_value(id=1,off=0,ks=4,vs=8,imm=0)" >>> + " R1_w=map_value(id=1,off=0,ks=4,vs=8,imm=0)\n" >>> + "[0-9]\\+: (85) call bpf_this_cpu_ptr#154\n" >>> "R1 type=map_value expected=percpu_ptr_" }, >>> { "lock_id_innermapval_preserve", >>> - "13: (bf) r1 = r0 ; R0=map_value(id=2,off=0,ks=4,vs=8,imm=0) " >>> - "R1_w=map_value(id=2,off=0,ks=4,vs=8,imm=0)\n14: (85) call bpf_this_cpu_ptr#154\n" >>> + "[0-9]\\+: (bf) r1 = r0 ;" >>> + " R0=map_value(id=2,off=0,ks=4,vs=8,imm=0)" >>> + " R1_w=map_value(id=2,off=0,ks=4,vs=8,imm=0)\n" >>> + "[0-9]\\+: (85) call bpf_this_cpu_ptr#154\n" >>> "R1 type=map_value expected=percpu_ptr_" }, >>> { "lock_id_mismatch_kptr_kptr", "bpf_spin_unlock of different lock" }, >>> { "lock_id_mismatch_kptr_global", "bpf_spin_unlock of different lock" }, >>> @@ -45,6 +50,24 @@ static struct { >>> { "lock_id_mismatch_innermapval_mapval", "bpf_spin_unlock of different lock" }, >>> }; >>> >>> +static int match_regex(const char *pattern, const char *string) >>> +{ >>> + int err, rc; >>> + regex_t re; >>> + >>> + err = regcomp(&re, pattern, REG_NOSUB); >>> + if (err) { >>> + char errbuf[512]; >>> + >>> + regerror(err, &re, errbuf, sizeof(errbuf)); >>> + PRINT_FAIL("Can't compile regex: %s\n", errbuf); >>> + return -1; >>> + } >>> + rc = regexec(&re, string, 0, NULL, 0); >>> + regfree(&re); >>> + return rc == 0 ? 1 : 0; >>> +} >>> + >>> static void test_spin_lock_fail_prog(const char *prog_name, const char *err_msg) >>> { >>> LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_object_open_opts, opts, .kernel_log_buf = log_buf, >>> @@ -74,7 +97,11 @@ static void test_spin_lock_fail_prog(const char *prog_name, const char *err_msg) >>> goto end; >>> } >>> >>> - if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(strstr(log_buf, err_msg), "expected error message")) { >>> + ret = match_regex(err_msg, log_buf); >>> + if (!ASSERT_GE(ret, 0, "match_regex")) >> >> Should this be ASSERT_GT(ret, 0) or ASSERT_EQ(ret, 1)? >> If IIUC, regexec return 0 means a successful match. >> So in 'match_regex', a successful match will return 1, right? > > Right `match_regex` has three possible return values: > . -1 if regex could not be compiled > . 0 if regex is ok but match fails > . 1 if regex is ok and match is found > > I check for -1 in this ASSERT_GE, and for 1 in the ASSERT_TRUE right > below in order to have two separate error messages. > > But maybe that is not necessary as I already have PRINT_FAIL in the > match_regex for -1 exit. So it would be possible to figure out what > failed: regcomp or regexec even if I replace ASSERT_GE/ASSERT_TRUE > with a single ASSERT_TRUE (or ASSERT_EQ(ret, 1)) as you suggest. Sorry, I think I missed the below change. It looks original intention is to print out expected/actual in case of failure. So your patch looks good to me. Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev> > >> >>> + goto end; >>> + >>> + if (!ASSERT_TRUE(ret, "no match for expected error message")) { >>> fprintf(stderr, "Expected: %s\n", err_msg); >>> fprintf(stderr, "Verifier: %s\n", log_buf); >>> } >
Hello: This patch was applied to bpf/bpf-next.git (master) by Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>: On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 19:27:55 +0300 you wrote: > Update [1] to LLVM BPF backend seeks to enable generation of BPF_ST > instruction when CPUv4 is selected. This affects expected log messages > for the following selftests: > - log_fixup/missing_map > - spin_lock/lock_id_mapval_preserve > - spin_lock/lock_id_innermapval_preserve > > [...] Here is the summary with links: - [bpf-next] selftests/bpf: relax expected log messages to allow emitting BPF_ST https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf-next/c/898f55f50a00 You are awesome, thank you!
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/log_fixup.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/log_fixup.c index dba71d98a227..effd78b2a657 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/log_fixup.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/log_fixup.c @@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ static void missing_map(void) ASSERT_FALSE(bpf_map__autocreate(skel->maps.missing_map), "missing_map_autocreate"); ASSERT_HAS_SUBSTR(log_buf, - "8: <invalid BPF map reference>\n" + ": <invalid BPF map reference>\n" "BPF map 'missing_map' is referenced but wasn't created\n", "log_buf"); diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/spin_lock.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/spin_lock.c index d9270bd3d920..f29c08d93beb 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/spin_lock.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/spin_lock.c @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@ // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 +#include <regex.h> #include <test_progs.h> #include <network_helpers.h> @@ -19,12 +20,16 @@ static struct { "; R1_w=map_value(off=0,ks=4,vs=4,imm=0)\n2: (85) call bpf_this_cpu_ptr#154\n" "R1 type=map_value expected=percpu_ptr_" }, { "lock_id_mapval_preserve", - "8: (bf) r1 = r0 ; R0_w=map_value(id=1,off=0,ks=4,vs=8,imm=0) " - "R1_w=map_value(id=1,off=0,ks=4,vs=8,imm=0)\n9: (85) call bpf_this_cpu_ptr#154\n" + "[0-9]\\+: (bf) r1 = r0 ;" + " R0_w=map_value(id=1,off=0,ks=4,vs=8,imm=0)" + " R1_w=map_value(id=1,off=0,ks=4,vs=8,imm=0)\n" + "[0-9]\\+: (85) call bpf_this_cpu_ptr#154\n" "R1 type=map_value expected=percpu_ptr_" }, { "lock_id_innermapval_preserve", - "13: (bf) r1 = r0 ; R0=map_value(id=2,off=0,ks=4,vs=8,imm=0) " - "R1_w=map_value(id=2,off=0,ks=4,vs=8,imm=0)\n14: (85) call bpf_this_cpu_ptr#154\n" + "[0-9]\\+: (bf) r1 = r0 ;" + " R0=map_value(id=2,off=0,ks=4,vs=8,imm=0)" + " R1_w=map_value(id=2,off=0,ks=4,vs=8,imm=0)\n" + "[0-9]\\+: (85) call bpf_this_cpu_ptr#154\n" "R1 type=map_value expected=percpu_ptr_" }, { "lock_id_mismatch_kptr_kptr", "bpf_spin_unlock of different lock" }, { "lock_id_mismatch_kptr_global", "bpf_spin_unlock of different lock" }, @@ -45,6 +50,24 @@ static struct { { "lock_id_mismatch_innermapval_mapval", "bpf_spin_unlock of different lock" }, }; +static int match_regex(const char *pattern, const char *string) +{ + int err, rc; + regex_t re; + + err = regcomp(&re, pattern, REG_NOSUB); + if (err) { + char errbuf[512]; + + regerror(err, &re, errbuf, sizeof(errbuf)); + PRINT_FAIL("Can't compile regex: %s\n", errbuf); + return -1; + } + rc = regexec(&re, string, 0, NULL, 0); + regfree(&re); + return rc == 0 ? 1 : 0; +} + static void test_spin_lock_fail_prog(const char *prog_name, const char *err_msg) { LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_object_open_opts, opts, .kernel_log_buf = log_buf, @@ -74,7 +97,11 @@ static void test_spin_lock_fail_prog(const char *prog_name, const char *err_msg) goto end; } - if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(strstr(log_buf, err_msg), "expected error message")) { + ret = match_regex(err_msg, log_buf); + if (!ASSERT_GE(ret, 0, "match_regex")) + goto end; + + if (!ASSERT_TRUE(ret, "no match for expected error message")) { fprintf(stderr, "Expected: %s\n", err_msg); fprintf(stderr, "Verifier: %s\n", log_buf); }
Update [1] to LLVM BPF backend seeks to enable generation of BPF_ST instruction when CPUv4 is selected. This affects expected log messages for the following selftests: - log_fixup/missing_map - spin_lock/lock_id_mapval_preserve - spin_lock/lock_id_innermapval_preserve Expected messages in these tests hard-code instruction numbers for BPF programs compiled from C. These instruction numbers change when BPF_ST is allowed because single BPF_ST instruction replaces a pair of BPF_MOV/BPF_STX instructions, e.g.: r1 = 42; *(u32 *)(r10 - 8) = r1; ---> *(u32 *)(r10 - 8) = 42; This commit updates expected log messages to avoid matching specific instruction numbers (program position still could be uniquely identified). [1] https://reviews.llvm.org/D140804 "[BPF] support for BPF_ST instruction in codegen" Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com> --- .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/log_fixup.c | 2 +- .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/spin_lock.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++--- 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)