Re: [PATCH bpf-next 5/8] selftests/bpf: Add nested trust selftests suite

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 05:58:30PM -0600, David Vernet wrote:
> Now that defining trusted fields in a struct is supported, we should add
> selftests to verify the behavior. This patch adds a few such testcases.
> 
> Signed-off-by: David Vernet <void@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/DENYLIST.s390x    |  1 +
>  .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/nested_trust.c   | 64 +++++++++++++++++++
>  .../selftests/bpf/progs/nested_trust_common.h | 12 ++++
>  .../bpf/progs/nested_trust_failure.c          | 33 ++++++++++
>  .../bpf/progs/nested_trust_success.c          | 29 +++++++++
>  5 files changed, 139 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/nested_trust.c
>  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/nested_trust_common.h
>  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/nested_trust_failure.c
>  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/nested_trust_success.c
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/DENYLIST.s390x b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/DENYLIST.s390x
> index 96e8371f5c2a..1cf5b94cda30 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/DENYLIST.s390x
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/DENYLIST.s390x
> @@ -44,6 +44,7 @@ map_kptr                                 # failed to open_and_load program: -524
>  modify_return                            # modify_return attach failed: -524                                           (trampoline)
>  module_attach                            # skel_attach skeleton attach failed: -524                                    (trampoline)
>  mptcp
> +nested_trust                             # JIT does not support calling kernel function
>  netcnt                                   # failed to load BPF skeleton 'netcnt_prog': -7                               (?)
>  probe_user                               # check_kprobe_res wrong kprobe res from probe read                           (?)
>  rcu_read_lock                            # failed to find kernel BTF type ID of '__x64_sys_getpgid': -3                (?)
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/nested_trust.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/nested_trust.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..4d13612f5001
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/nested_trust.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +/* Copyright (c) 2023 Meta Platforms, Inc. and affiliates. */
> +
> +#include <test_progs.h>
> +#include "nested_trust_failure.skel.h"
> +#include "nested_trust_success.skel.h"
> +
> +static const char * const nested_trust_success_testcases[] = {
> +	"test_read_cpumask",
> +};
> +
> +static void verify_success(const char *prog_name)
> +{
> +	struct nested_trust_success *skel;
> +	struct bpf_program *prog;
> +	struct bpf_link *link = NULL;
> +	int status;
> +	pid_t child_pid;
> +
> +	skel = nested_trust_success__open();
> +	if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "nested_trust_success__open"))
> +		return;
> +
> +	skel->bss->pid = getpid();
> +
> +	nested_trust_success__load(skel);
> +	if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "nested_trust_success__load"))
> +		goto cleanup;
> +
> +	prog = bpf_object__find_program_by_name(skel->obj, prog_name);
> +	if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(prog, "bpf_object__find_program_by_name"))
> +		goto cleanup;
> +
> +	link = bpf_program__attach(prog);
> +	if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(link, "bpf_program__attach"))
> +		goto cleanup;
> +
> +	child_pid = fork();
> +	if (!ASSERT_GT(child_pid, -1, "child_pid"))
> +		goto cleanup;
> +	if (child_pid == 0)
> +		_exit(0);
> +	waitpid(child_pid, &status, 0);
> +	ASSERT_OK(skel->bss->err, "post_wait_err");
> +
> +	bpf_link__destroy(link);
> +
> +cleanup:
> +	nested_trust_success__destroy(skel);
> +}
> +
> +void test_nested_trust(void)
> +{
> +	int i;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(nested_trust_success_testcases); i++) {
> +		if (!test__start_subtest(nested_trust_success_testcases[i]))
> +			continue;
> +
> +		verify_success(nested_trust_success_testcases[i]);
> +	}
> +
> +	RUN_TESTS(nested_trust_failure);
> +}

Hmm. I thought RUN_TESTS() works for successes too.
Looking at test_loader.c:run_subtest() that should be the case.
Could you please double check?
verify_success() above shouldn't be needed.