Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 3/3] selftests/bpf: add testcase for FENTRY/FEXIT with 6+ arguments

[Menglong Dong]

On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 4:10 AM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 08:59:11PM +0800, menglong8.dong@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > From: Menglong Dong <imagedong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Add test9/test10 in fexit_test.c and fentry_test.c to test the fentry
> > and fexit whose target function have 7/12 arguments.
> >
> > Correspondingly, add bpf_testmod_fentry_test7() and
> > bpf_testmod_fentry_test12() to bpf_testmod.c
> >
> > And the testcases passed:
> >
> > ./test_progs -t fexit
> > Summary: 5/12 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
> >
> > ./test_progs -t fentry
> > Summary: 3/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Jiang Biao <benbjiang@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong <imagedong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > v3:
> > - move bpf_fentry_test{7,12} to bpf_testmod.c and rename them to
> >   bpf_testmod_fentry_test{7,12} meanwhile
> > - get return value by bpf_get_func_ret() in
> >   "fexit/bpf_testmod_fentry_test12", as we don't change ___bpf_ctx_cast()
> >   in this version
> > ---
> >  .../selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c   | 19 ++++++++++-
> >  .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fentry_fexit.c   |  4 ++-
> >  .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fentry_test.c    |  2 ++
> >  .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fexit_test.c     |  2 ++
> >  .../testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_test.c | 21 ++++++++++++
> >  .../testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fexit_test.c  | 33 +++++++++++++++++++
> >  6 files changed, 79 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
> > index cf216041876c..66615fdbe3df 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
> > @@ -191,6 +191,19 @@ noinline int bpf_testmod_fentry_test3(char a, int b, u64 c)
> >       return a + b + c;
> >  }
> >
> > +noinline int bpf_testmod_fentry_test7(u64 a, void *b, short c, int d,
> > +                                   void *e, u64 f, u64 g)
> > +{
> > +     return a + (long)b + c + d + (long)e + f + g;
> > +}
> > +
> > +noinline int bpf_testmod_fentry_test12(u64 a, void *b, short c, int d,
> > +                                    void *e, u64 f, u64 g, u64 h,
> > +                                    u64 i, u64 j, u64 k, u64 l)
>
> Please switch args to a combination of u8,u16,u32,u64.
> u64 only args might hide bugs.

Okay, that makes sense.