diff mbox series

[bpf,RESEND,4/4] bpf:selftests: Add kfunc_call test for mixing 32-bit and 64-bit parameters

Message ID 20221103092118.248600-5-yangjihong1@huawei.com (mailing list archive)
State Superseded
Delegated to: BPF
Headers show
Series bpf: Support kernel function call in 32-bit ARM | expand

Checks

Context Check Description
bpf/vmtest-bpf-PR fail PR summary
bpf/vmtest-bpf-VM_Test-1 pending Logs for ${{ matrix.test }} on ${{ matrix.arch }} with ${{ matrix.toolchain }}
bpf/vmtest-bpf-VM_Test-2 pending Logs for ShellCheck
bpf/vmtest-bpf-VM_Test-3 fail Logs for build for s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-VM_Test-4 fail Logs for build for x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-VM_Test-5 fail Logs for build for x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-VM_Test-6 success Logs for llvm-toolchain
bpf/vmtest-bpf-VM_Test-7 success Logs for set-matrix
netdev/tree_selection success Clearly marked for bpf
netdev/fixes_present fail Series targets non-next tree, but doesn't contain any Fixes tags
netdev/subject_prefix success Link
netdev/cover_letter success Series has a cover letter
netdev/patch_count success Link
netdev/header_inline success No static functions without inline keyword in header files
netdev/build_32bit fail Errors and warnings before: 35 this patch: 36
netdev/cc_maintainers success CCed 24 of 24 maintainers
netdev/build_clang success Errors and warnings before: 5 this patch: 5
netdev/module_param success Was 0 now: 0
netdev/verify_signedoff success Signed-off-by tag matches author and committer
netdev/check_selftest success No net selftest shell script
netdev/verify_fixes success No Fixes tag
netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn fail Errors and warnings before: 35 this patch: 36
netdev/checkpatch fail ERROR: inline keyword should sit between storage class and type
netdev/kdoc success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/source_inline success Was 0 now: 0

Commit Message

Yang Jihong Nov. 3, 2022, 9:21 a.m. UTC 
for function foo(u32 a, u64 b, u32 c) in 32-bit ARM: a is in r0, b is in
r2-r3, c is stored on the stack.
Because the AAPCS states:
"A double-word sized type is passed in two consecutive registers (e.g., r0
and r1, or r2 and r3). The content of the registers is as if the value had
been loaded from memory representation with a single LDM instruction."
Supplement the test cases in this case.

Signed-off-by: Yang Jihong <yangjihong1@huawei.com>
---
 net/bpf/test_run.c                            |  6 +++++
 .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c     |  1 +
 .../selftests/bpf/progs/kfunc_call_test.c     | 23 +++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 30 insertions(+)
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/net/bpf/test_run.c b/net/bpf/test_run.c
index 13d578ce2a09..bdfb3081e1ce 100644
--- a/net/bpf/test_run.c
+++ b/net/bpf/test_run.c
@@ -551,6 +551,11 @@  struct sock * noinline bpf_kfunc_call_test3(struct sock *sk)
 	return sk;
 }
 
+u64 noinline bpf_kfunc_call_test4(struct sock *sk, u64 a, u64 b, u32 c, u32 d)
+{
+	return a + b + c + d;
+}
+
 struct prog_test_member1 {
 	int a;
 };
@@ -739,6 +744,7 @@  BTF_SET8_START(test_sk_check_kfunc_ids)
 BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test1)
 BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test2)
 BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test3)
+BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test4)
 BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test_acquire, KF_ACQUIRE | KF_RET_NULL)
 BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_kfunc_call_memb_acquire, KF_ACQUIRE | KF_RET_NULL)
 BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test_release, KF_RELEASE)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c
index 5af1ee8f0e6e..13a105bb05ed 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c
@@ -72,6 +72,7 @@  static struct kfunc_test_params kfunc_tests[] = {
 	/* success cases */
 	TC_TEST(kfunc_call_test1, 12),
 	TC_TEST(kfunc_call_test2, 3),
+	TC_TEST(kfunc_call_test4, 16),
 	TC_TEST(kfunc_call_test_ref_btf_id, 0),
 	TC_TEST(kfunc_call_test_get_mem, 42),
 	SYSCALL_TEST(kfunc_syscall_test, 0),
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/kfunc_call_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/kfunc_call_test.c
index f636e50be259..7cccb014d26e 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/kfunc_call_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/kfunc_call_test.c
@@ -6,6 +6,8 @@ 
 extern int bpf_kfunc_call_test2(struct sock *sk, __u32 a, __u32 b) __ksym;
 extern __u64 bpf_kfunc_call_test1(struct sock *sk, __u32 a, __u64 b,
 				  __u32 c, __u64 d) __ksym;
+extern __u64 bpf_kfunc_call_test4(struct sock *sk, __u64 a, __u64 b,
+				  __u32 c, __u32 d) __ksym;
 
 extern struct prog_test_ref_kfunc *bpf_kfunc_call_test_acquire(unsigned long *sp) __ksym;
 extern void bpf_kfunc_call_test_release(struct prog_test_ref_kfunc *p) __ksym;
@@ -17,6 +19,27 @@  extern void bpf_kfunc_call_test_mem_len_fail2(__u64 *mem, int len) __ksym;
 extern int *bpf_kfunc_call_test_get_rdwr_mem(struct prog_test_ref_kfunc *p, const int rdwr_buf_size) __ksym;
 extern int *bpf_kfunc_call_test_get_rdonly_mem(struct prog_test_ref_kfunc *p, const int rdonly_buf_size) __ksym;
 
+SEC("tc")
+int kfunc_call_test4(struct __sk_buff *skb)
+{
+	struct bpf_sock *sk = skb->sk;
+	__u64 a = 1ULL << 32;
+	__u32 ret;
+
+	if (!sk)
+		return -1;
+
+	sk = bpf_sk_fullsock(sk);
+	if (!sk)
+		return -1;
+
+	a = bpf_kfunc_call_test4((struct sock *)sk, a | 2, a | 3, 4, 5);
+	ret = a >> 32;   /* ret should be 2 */
+	ret += (__u32)a; /* ret should be 16 */
+
+	return ret;
+}
+
 SEC("tc")
 int kfunc_call_test2(struct __sk_buff *skb)
 {