On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 10:43:38AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> Break up the first 10 kLoC of test verifier test cases
> out into smaller files. Looks like git line counting
> gets a little flismy above 16 bit integers, so we need
> two commits to break up test_verifier.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]>
> Acked-by: Jiong Wang <[email protected]>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 10100 ----------------
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/and.c | 53 +
> .../selftests/bpf/verifier/array_access.c | 238 +
...
> - {
> - "DIV64 by 0, zero check",
> - .insns = {
> - BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 42),
> - BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 0),
> - BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 1),
> - BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_DIV, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1),
> - BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> - },
> - .result = ACCEPT,
> - .retval = 42,
> - },
...
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/and.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
> +{
> + "invalid and of negative number",
> + .insns = {
> + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0),
> + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
> + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8),
> + BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0),
> + BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0,
> + BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem),
> + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 4),
> + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0, 0),
> + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_1, -4),
> + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_LSH, BPF_REG_1, 2),
> + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
> + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, 0,
> + offsetof(struct test_val, foo)),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + },
> + .fixup_map_hash_48b = { 3 },
> + .errstr = "R0 max value is outside of the array range",
> + .result = REJECT,
> + .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
> +},
I like the removal of one tab, but since we're refactoring the whole thing
can we remove another tab from instructions?
In many cases we wrap the lines which makes tests a bit harder to read/write
since jmp offsets don't easily add from current line number.
In addition I would propose to represet LD_MAP_FD as two lines too,
but that's optional. I'm thinking to try that for new tests.
So how about the following indent:
{
"invalid and of negative number",
.insns = {
BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8),
BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1,
0),
BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem),
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 4),
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_1, -4),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_LSH, BPF_REG_1, 2),
BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, 0, offsetof(struct test_val, foo)),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.fixup_map_hash_48b = { 3 },
.errstr = "R0 max value is outside of the array range",
.result = REJECT,
.flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
Notice how calls and offsetof() fits into 80 char.
Another alternative is to switch to two spaces instead of tab:
{
"invalid and of negative number",
.insns = {
BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8),
BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1,
0),
BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem),
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 4),
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_1, -4),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_LSH, BPF_REG_1, 2),
BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, 0, offsetof(struct test_val, foo)),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.fixup_map_hash_48b = { 3 },
.errstr = "R0 max value is outside of the array range",
.result = REJECT,
.flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
Thoughts?
