public inbox for [email protected]
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <[email protected]>,
	Daniel Borkmann <[email protected]>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]>, Yonghong Song <[email protected]>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <[email protected]>,
	Alexander Mikhalitsyn <[email protected]>,
	Andrei Vagin <[email protected]>,
	[email protected], [email protected],
	[email protected]
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v2 08/10] selftests/bpf: Test partial reads for io_uring, epoll iterators
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 04:23:50 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

Ensure that the output is consistent in face of partial reads that
return to userspace and then resume again later. To this end, we do
reads in 1-byte chunks, which is a bit stupid in real life, but works
well to simulate interrupted iteration. This also tests case where
seq_file buffer is consumed (after seq_printf) on interrupted read
before iterator invoked BPF prog again.

Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <[email protected]>
---
 .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_iter.c       | 33 ++++++++++++-------
 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_iter.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_iter.c
index 7fb995deb22d..c7343a3f5155 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_iter.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_iter.c
@@ -73,13 +73,13 @@ static void do_dummy_read(struct bpf_program *prog)
 	bpf_link__destroy(link);
 }
 
-static int read_fd_into_buffer(int fd, char *buf, int size)
+static int __read_fd_into_buffer(int fd, char *buf, int size, size_t chunks)
 {
 	int bufleft = size;
 	int len;
 
 	do {
-		len = read(fd, buf, bufleft);
+		len = read(fd, buf, chunks ?: bufleft);
 		if (len > 0) {
 			buf += len;
 			bufleft -= len;
@@ -89,6 +89,11 @@ static int read_fd_into_buffer(int fd, char *buf, int size)
 	return len < 0 ? len : size - bufleft;
 }
 
+static int read_fd_into_buffer(int fd, char *buf, int size)
+{
+	return __read_fd_into_buffer(fd, buf, size, 0);
+}
+
 static void test_ipv6_route(void)
 {
 	struct bpf_iter_ipv6_route *skel;
@@ -1301,7 +1306,7 @@ static int io_uring_inode_match(int link_fd, int io_uring_fd)
 	return 0;
 }
 
-void test_io_uring_buf(void)
+void test_io_uring_buf(bool partial)
 {
 	DECLARE_LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_iter_attach_opts, opts);
 	char rbuf[4096], buf[4096] = "B\n";
@@ -1375,7 +1380,7 @@ void test_io_uring_buf(void)
 	if (!ASSERT_GE(iter_fd, 0, "bpf_iter_create"))
 		goto end_close_fd;
 
-	ret = read_fd_into_buffer(iter_fd, rbuf, sizeof(rbuf));
+	ret = __read_fd_into_buffer(iter_fd, rbuf, sizeof(rbuf), partial);
 	if (!ASSERT_GT(ret, 0, "read_fd_into_buffer"))
 		goto end_close_iter;
 
@@ -1396,7 +1401,7 @@ void test_io_uring_buf(void)
 	bpf_iter_io_uring__destroy(skel);
 }
 
-void test_io_uring_file(void)
+void test_io_uring_file(bool partial)
 {
 	int reg_files[] = { [0 ... 7] = -1 };
 	DECLARE_LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_iter_attach_opts, opts);
@@ -1464,7 +1469,7 @@ void test_io_uring_file(void)
 	if (!ASSERT_OK(ret, "io_uring_register_files"))
 		goto end_iter_fd;
 
-	ret = read_fd_into_buffer(iter_fd, rbuf, sizeof(rbuf));
+	ret = __read_fd_into_buffer(iter_fd, rbuf, sizeof(rbuf), partial);
 	if (!ASSERT_GT(ret, 0, "read_fd_into_buffer(iterator_fd, buf)"))
 		goto end_iter_fd;
 
@@ -1488,7 +1493,7 @@ void test_io_uring_file(void)
 	bpf_iter_io_uring__destroy(skel);
 }
 
-void test_epoll(void)
+void test_epoll(bool partial)
 {
 	const char *fmt = "B\npipe:%d\nsocket:%d\npipe:%d\nsocket:%d\nE\n";
 	DECLARE_LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_iter_attach_opts, opts);
@@ -1554,7 +1559,7 @@ void test_epoll(void)
 	if (!ASSERT_GE(ret, 0, "snprintf") || !ASSERT_LT(ret, sizeof(buf), "snprintf"))
 		goto end_iter_fd;
 
-	ret = read_fd_into_buffer(iter_fd, rbuf, sizeof(rbuf));
+	ret = __read_fd_into_buffer(iter_fd, rbuf, sizeof(rbuf), partial);
 	if (!ASSERT_GT(ret, 0, "read_fd_into_buffer"))
 		goto end_iter_fd;
 
@@ -1666,9 +1671,15 @@ void test_bpf_iter(void)
 	if (test__start_subtest("buf-neg-offset"))
 		test_buf_neg_offset();
 	if (test__start_subtest("io_uring_buf"))
-		test_io_uring_buf();
+		test_io_uring_buf(false);
 	if (test__start_subtest("io_uring_file"))
-		test_io_uring_file();
+		test_io_uring_file(false);
 	if (test__start_subtest("epoll"))
-		test_epoll();
+		test_epoll(false);
+	if (test__start_subtest("io_uring_buf-partial"))
+		test_io_uring_buf(true);
+	if (test__start_subtest("io_uring_file-partial"))
+		test_io_uring_file(true);
+	if (test__start_subtest("epoll-partial"))
+		test_epoll(true);
 }
-- 
2.34.0


  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-11-22 22:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-11-22 22:53 [PATCH bpf-next v2 00/10] Introduce BPF iterators for io_uring and epoll Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2021-11-22 22:53 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 01/10] io_uring: Implement eBPF iterator for registered buffers Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2021-11-23  4:27   ` kernel test robot
2021-11-22 22:53 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 02/10] bpf: Add bpf_page_to_pfn helper Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2021-11-22 22:53 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 03/10] io_uring: Implement eBPF iterator for registered files Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2021-11-22 22:53 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 04/10] epoll: Implement eBPF iterator for registered items Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2021-11-22 22:53 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 05/10] bpftool: Output io_uring iterator info Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2021-11-22 22:53 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 06/10] selftests/bpf: Add test for io_uring BPF iterators Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2021-11-22 22:53 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 07/10] selftests/bpf: Add test for epoll BPF iterator Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2021-11-22 22:53 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi [this message]
2021-11-22 22:53 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 09/10] selftests/bpf: Fix btf_dump test for bpf_iter_link_info Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2021-11-22 22:53 ` [PATCH RFC bpf-next v2 10/10] samples/bpf: Add example to checkpoint/restore io_uring Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox