diff mbox series

[bpf-next,v2,15/15] selftests/bpf: test cases for '?' in BTF names

Message ID 20240302011920.15302-16-eddyz87@gmail.com (mailing list archive)
State Superseded
Delegated to: BPF
Headers show
Series libbpf: type suffixes and autocreate flag for struct_ops maps | expand

Checks

Context Check Description
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-PR fail PR summary
netdev/series_format success Posting correctly formatted
netdev/tree_selection success Clearly marked for bpf-next, async
netdev/ynl success Generated files up to date; no warnings/errors; no diff in generated;
netdev/fixes_present success Fixes tag not required for -next series
netdev/header_inline success No static functions without inline keyword in header files
netdev/build_32bit success Errors and warnings before: 8 this patch: 8
netdev/build_tools success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/cc_maintainers warning 9 maintainers not CCed: jolsa@kernel.org mykolal@fb.com john.fastabend@gmail.com shuah@kernel.org song@kernel.org sdf@google.com linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org kpsingh@kernel.org haoluo@google.com
netdev/build_clang success Errors and warnings before: 8 this patch: 8
netdev/verify_signedoff success Signed-off-by tag matches author and committer
netdev/deprecated_api success None detected
netdev/check_selftest success No net selftest shell script
netdev/verify_fixes success No Fixes tag
netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn success Errors and warnings before: 8 this patch: 8
netdev/checkpatch success total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 58 lines checked
netdev/build_clang_rust success No Rust files in patch. Skipping build
netdev/kdoc success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/source_inline success Was 0 now: 0
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-16 success Logs for s390x-gcc / test (test_verifier, false, 360) / test_verifier on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-21 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_maps, false, 360) / test_maps on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-24 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_progs_no_alu32_parallel, true, 30) / test_progs_no_alu32_parallel on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-25 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_progs_parallel, true, 30) / test_progs_parallel on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-26 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_verifier, false, 360) / test_verifier on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-27 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / veristat / veristat on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-22 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_progs, false, 360) / test_progs on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-23 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_progs_no_alu32, false, 360) / test_progs_no_alu32 on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-14 success Logs for s390x-gcc / test (test_progs, false, 360) / test_progs on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-29 fail Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / build-release / build for x86_64 with llvm-17 and -O2 optimization
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-1 success Logs for ShellCheck
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-2 success Logs for Unittests
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-0 success Logs for Lint
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-3 success Logs for Validate matrix.py
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-5 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / build-release
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-4 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / build / build for aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-10 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / veristat
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-12 success Logs for s390x-gcc / build-release
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-13 success Logs for set-matrix
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-15 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / build-release
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-9 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / test (test_verifier, false, 360) / test_verifier on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-11 success Logs for s390x-gcc / build / build for s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-17 success Logs for s390x-gcc / veristat
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-18 success Logs for set-matrix
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-19 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / build / build for x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-20 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / build-release
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-28 fail Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / build / build for x86_64 with llvm-17
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-30 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / test
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-31 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / veristat
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-32 fail Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / build / build for x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-34 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / test
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-35 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / veristat
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-6 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / test (test_maps, false, 360) / test_maps on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-7 fail Logs for aarch64-gcc / test (test_progs, false, 360) / test_progs on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-8 fail Logs for aarch64-gcc / test (test_progs_no_alu32, false, 360) / test_progs_no_alu32 on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-33 fail Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / build-release / build for x86_64 with llvm-18 and -O2 optimization

Commit Message

Eduard Zingerman March 2, 2024, 1:19 a.m. UTC 
Three test cases to verify when '?' is allowed in BTF names:
- allowed as first character in DATASEC name;
- not allowed as non-first character in DATASEC name;
- not allowed in any position in non-DATASEC names.

Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+)
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c
index 816145bcb647..88c71e3924b9 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c
@@ -3535,6 +3535,49 @@  static struct btf_raw_test raw_tests[] = {
 	.value_type_id = 1,
 	.max_entries = 1,
 },
+{
+	.descr = "datasec: name '?.foo' is ok",
+	.raw_types = {
+		/* int */
+		BTF_TYPE_INT_ENC(0, BTF_INT_SIGNED, 0, 32, 4),  /* [1] */
+		/* VAR x */                                     /* [2] */
+		BTF_TYPE_ENC(1, BTF_INFO_ENC(BTF_KIND_VAR, 0, 0), 1),
+		BTF_VAR_STATIC,
+		/* DATASEC ?.data */                            /* [3] */
+		BTF_TYPE_ENC(3, BTF_INFO_ENC(BTF_KIND_DATASEC, 0, 1), 4),
+		BTF_VAR_SECINFO_ENC(2, 0, 4),
+		BTF_END_RAW,
+	},
+	BTF_STR_SEC("\0x\0?.foo"),
+},
+{
+	.descr = "datasec: name '.?foo' is not ok",
+	.raw_types = {
+		/* int */
+		BTF_TYPE_INT_ENC(0, BTF_INT_SIGNED, 0, 32, 4),  /* [1] */
+		/* VAR x */                                     /* [2] */
+		BTF_TYPE_ENC(1, BTF_INFO_ENC(BTF_KIND_VAR, 0, 0), 1),
+		BTF_VAR_STATIC,
+		/* DATASEC ?.data */                            /* [3] */
+		BTF_TYPE_ENC(3, BTF_INFO_ENC(BTF_KIND_DATASEC, 0, 1), 4),
+		BTF_VAR_SECINFO_ENC(2, 0, 4),
+		BTF_END_RAW,
+	},
+	BTF_STR_SEC("\0x\0.?foo"),
+	.err_str = "Invalid name",
+	.btf_load_err = true,
+},
+{
+	.descr = "type name '?foo' is not ok",
+	.raw_types = {
+		/* union ?foo; */
+		BTF_TYPE_ENC(1, BTF_INFO_ENC(BTF_KIND_FWD, 1, 0), 0), /* [1] */
+		BTF_END_RAW,
+	},
+	BTF_STR_SEC("\0?foo"),
+	.err_str = "Invalid name",
+	.btf_load_err = true,
+},
 
 {
 	.descr = "float test #1, well-formed",
@@ -4363,6 +4406,9 @@  static void do_test_raw(unsigned int test_num)
 	if (err || btf_fd < 0)
 		goto done;
 
+	if (!test->map_type)
+		goto done;
+
 	opts.btf_fd = btf_fd;
 	opts.btf_key_type_id = test->key_type_id;
 	opts.btf_value_type_id = test->value_type_id;