| Message ID | 1729737768-124596-5-git-send-email-alibuda@linux.alibaba.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Headers | show |
| Series | net/smc: Introduce smc_bpf_ops | expand |
On 10/24/24 10:42 AM, D. Wythe wrote: > From: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@linux.alibaba.com> > > This PATCH adds a tiny selftest for bpf_smc_ops, to verify the ability > to attach and write access. > > Follow the steps below to run this test. > > make -C tools/testing/selftests/bpf > cd tools/testing/selftests/bpf > sudo ./test_progs -t smc > > Results shows: > Summary: 1/1 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED Sorry for just found an issue with vary config. I will fix this issues in the next version. D. Wythe
On 2024/10/24 12:04, D. Wythe wrote: > > > On 10/24/24 10:42 AM, D. Wythe wrote: >> From: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@linux.alibaba.com> >> >> This PATCH adds a tiny selftest for bpf_smc_ops, to verify the ability >> to attach and write access. >> >> Follow the steps below to run this test. >> >> make -C tools/testing/selftests/bpf >> cd tools/testing/selftests/bpf >> sudo ./test_progs -t smc >> >> Results shows: >> Summary: 1/1 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED > > > Sorry for just found an issue with vary config. I will fix this issues > in the next version. > > D. Wythe This doesn't build with !CONFIG_SMC. Maybe you should create an individual dir. (like what sched_ext does)
On 10/24/24 12:49 PM, Tianchen Ding wrote: > On 2024/10/24 12:04, D. Wythe wrote: >> >> >> On 10/24/24 10:42 AM, D. Wythe wrote: >>> From: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@linux.alibaba.com> >>> >>> This PATCH adds a tiny selftest for bpf_smc_ops, to verify the ability >>> to attach and write access. >>> >>> Follow the steps below to run this test. >>> >>> make -C tools/testing/selftests/bpf >>> cd tools/testing/selftests/bpf >>> sudo ./test_progs -t smc >>> >>> Results shows: >>> Summary: 1/1 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED >> >> >> Sorry for just found an issue with vary config. I will fix this issues >> in the next version. >> >> D. Wythe > > This doesn't build with !CONFIG_SMC. > > Maybe you should create an individual dir. (like what sched_ext does) It's true, I do intend to create an individual dir, and send the patches for BPF and SMC separately. Thanks for your advises. Best wishes, D. Wythe
在 2024/10/24 4:42, D. Wythe 写道: > From: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@linux.alibaba.com> > > This PATCH adds a tiny selftest for bpf_smc_ops, to verify the ability > to attach and write access. > > Follow the steps below to run this test. > > make -C tools/testing/selftests/bpf > cd tools/testing/selftests/bpf > sudo ./test_progs -t smc Thanks a lot. # ./test_progs -t smc #27/1 bpf_smc/load:OK #27 bpf_smc:OK Summary: 1/1 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED The above command is based on several kernel modules. After these dependent kernel modules are loaded, then can run the above command successfully. Zhu Yanjun > > Results shows: > Summary: 1/1 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED > > Signed-off-by: D. Wythe <alibuda@linux.alibaba.com> > --- > .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_bpf_smc.c | 21 +++++++++++ > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_smc.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 65 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_bpf_smc.c > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_smc.c > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_bpf_smc.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_bpf_smc.c > new file mode 100644 > index 00000000..2299853 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_bpf_smc.c > @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > +#include <test_progs.h> > + > +#include "bpf_smc.skel.h" > + > +static void load(void) > +{ > + struct bpf_smc *skel; > + > + skel = bpf_smc__open_and_load(); > + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "bpf_smc__open_and_load")) > + return; > + > + bpf_smc__destroy(skel); > +} > + > +void test_bpf_smc(void) > +{ > + if (test__start_subtest("load")) > + load(); > +} > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_smc.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_smc.c > new file mode 100644 > index 00000000..ebff477 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_smc.c > @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@ > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > + > +#include "vmlinux.h" > + > +#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h> > +#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h> > + > +char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL"; > + > +struct smc_bpf_ops_ctx { > + struct { > + struct tcp_sock *tp; > + } set_option; > + struct { > + const struct tcp_sock *tp; > + struct inet_request_sock *ireq; > + int smc_ok; > + } set_option_cond; > +}; > + > +struct smc_bpf_ops { > + void (*set_option)(struct smc_bpf_ops_ctx *ctx); > + void (*set_option_cond)(struct smc_bpf_ops_ctx *ctx); > +}; > + > +SEC("struct_ops/bpf_smc_set_tcp_option_cond") > +void BPF_PROG(bpf_smc_set_tcp_option_cond, struct smc_bpf_ops_ctx *arg) > +{ > + arg->set_option_cond.smc_ok = 1; > +} > + > +SEC("struct_ops/bpf_smc_set_tcp_option") > +void BPF_PROG(bpf_smc_set_tcp_option, struct smc_bpf_ops_ctx *arg) > +{ > + struct tcp_sock *tp = arg->set_option.tp; > + > + tp->syn_smc = 1; > +} > + > +SEC(".struct_ops.link") > +struct smc_bpf_ops sample_smc_bpf_ops = { > + .set_option = (void *) bpf_smc_set_tcp_option, > + .set_option_cond = (void *) bpf_smc_set_tcp_option_cond, > +};
On 11/3/24 9:01 PM, Zhu Yanjun wrote: > 在 2024/10/24 4:42, D. Wythe 写道: >> From: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@linux.alibaba.com> >> >> This PATCH adds a tiny selftest for bpf_smc_ops, to verify the ability >> to attach and write access. >> >> Follow the steps below to run this test. >> >> make -C tools/testing/selftests/bpf >> cd tools/testing/selftests/bpf >> sudo ./test_progs -t smc > > Thanks a lot. > > # ./test_progs -t smc > #27/1 bpf_smc/load:OK > #27 bpf_smc:OK > Summary: 1/1 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED > > The above command is based on several kernel modules. After these dependent kernel modules are > loaded, then can run the above command successfully. > > Zhu Yanjun > Hi, Yanjun This is indeed a problem, a better way may be to create a separate testing directory for SMC, and we are trying to do this. Best wishes, D. Wythe >> >> Results shows: >> Summary: 1/1 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED >> >> Signed-off-by: D. Wythe <alibuda@linux.alibaba.com> >> --- >> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_bpf_smc.c | 21 +++++++++++ >> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_smc.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 2 files changed, 65 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_bpf_smc.c >> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_smc.c >> >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_bpf_smc.c >> b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_bpf_smc.c >> new file mode 100644 >> index 00000000..2299853 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_bpf_smc.c >> @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ >> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 >> +#include <test_progs.h> >> + >> +#include "bpf_smc.skel.h" >> + >> +static void load(void) >> +{ >> + struct bpf_smc *skel; >> + >> + skel = bpf_smc__open_and_load(); >> + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "bpf_smc__open_and_load")) >> + return; >> + >> + bpf_smc__destroy(skel); >> +} >> + >> +void test_bpf_smc(void) >> +{ >> + if (test__start_subtest("load")) >> + load(); >> +} >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_smc.c >> b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_smc.c >> new file mode 100644 >> index 00000000..ebff477 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_smc.c >> @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@ >> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 >> + >> +#include "vmlinux.h" >> + >> +#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h> >> +#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h> >> + >> +char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL"; >> + >> +struct smc_bpf_ops_ctx { >> + struct { >> + struct tcp_sock *tp; >> + } set_option; >> + struct { >> + const struct tcp_sock *tp; >> + struct inet_request_sock *ireq; >> + int smc_ok; >> + } set_option_cond; >> +}; >> + >> +struct smc_bpf_ops { >> + void (*set_option)(struct smc_bpf_ops_ctx *ctx); >> + void (*set_option_cond)(struct smc_bpf_ops_ctx *ctx); >> +}; >> + >> +SEC("struct_ops/bpf_smc_set_tcp_option_cond") >> +void BPF_PROG(bpf_smc_set_tcp_option_cond, struct smc_bpf_ops_ctx *arg) >> +{ >> + arg->set_option_cond.smc_ok = 1; >> +} >> + >> +SEC("struct_ops/bpf_smc_set_tcp_option") >> +void BPF_PROG(bpf_smc_set_tcp_option, struct smc_bpf_ops_ctx *arg) >> +{ >> + struct tcp_sock *tp = arg->set_option.tp; >> + >> + tp->syn_smc = 1; >> +} >> + >> +SEC(".struct_ops.link") >> +struct smc_bpf_ops sample_smc_bpf_ops = { >> + .set_option = (void *) bpf_smc_set_tcp_option, >> + .set_option_cond = (void *) bpf_smc_set_tcp_option_cond, >> +};
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_bpf_smc.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_bpf_smc.c new file mode 100644 index 00000000..2299853 --- /dev/null +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_bpf_smc.c @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 +#include <test_progs.h> + +#include "bpf_smc.skel.h" + +static void load(void) +{ + struct bpf_smc *skel; + + skel = bpf_smc__open_and_load(); + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "bpf_smc__open_and_load")) + return; + + bpf_smc__destroy(skel); +} + +void test_bpf_smc(void) +{ + if (test__start_subtest("load")) + load(); +} diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_smc.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_smc.c new file mode 100644 index 00000000..ebff477 --- /dev/null +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_smc.c @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 + +#include "vmlinux.h" + +#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h> +#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h> + +char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL"; + +struct smc_bpf_ops_ctx { + struct { + struct tcp_sock *tp; + } set_option; + struct { + const struct tcp_sock *tp; + struct inet_request_sock *ireq; + int smc_ok; + } set_option_cond; +}; + +struct smc_bpf_ops { + void (*set_option)(struct smc_bpf_ops_ctx *ctx); + void (*set_option_cond)(struct smc_bpf_ops_ctx *ctx); +}; + +SEC("struct_ops/bpf_smc_set_tcp_option_cond") +void BPF_PROG(bpf_smc_set_tcp_option_cond, struct smc_bpf_ops_ctx *arg) +{ + arg->set_option_cond.smc_ok = 1; +} + +SEC("struct_ops/bpf_smc_set_tcp_option") +void BPF_PROG(bpf_smc_set_tcp_option, struct smc_bpf_ops_ctx *arg) +{ + struct tcp_sock *tp = arg->set_option.tp; + + tp->syn_smc = 1; +} + +SEC(".struct_ops.link") +struct smc_bpf_ops sample_smc_bpf_ops = { + .set_option = (void *) bpf_smc_set_tcp_option, + .set_option_cond = (void *) bpf_smc_set_tcp_option_cond, +};