[dpdk-stable] [PATCH 1/5] test/bpf: fix few small issues

[dpdk-stable] [PATCH 1/5] test/bpf: fix few small issues

[Konstantin Ananyev]

Address for few small issues:
 - unreachable return statement
 - failed test-case can finish with 'success' status

Also use unified cmp_res() function to check return value.

Fixes: a9de470cc7c0 ("test: move to app directory")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org

Signed-off-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
---
 app/test/test_bpf.c | 41 +++++++++++++++--------------------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)

diff --git a/app/test/test_bpf.c b/app/test/test_bpf.c
index ee534687a..4a61a7d7c 100644
--- a/app/test/test_bpf.c
+++ b/app/test/test_bpf.c
@@ -1797,13 +1797,6 @@ test_call1_check(uint64_t rc, const void *arg)
 	dummy_func1(arg, &v32, &v64);
 	v64 += v32;
 
-	if (v64 != rc) {
-		printf("%s@%d: invalid return value "
-			"expected=0x%" PRIx64 ", actual=0x%" PRIx64 "\n",
-			__func__, __LINE__, v64, rc);
-		return -1;
-	}
-	return 0;
 	return cmp_res(__func__, v64, rc, dv, dv, sizeof(*dv));
 }
 
@@ -1934,13 +1927,7 @@ test_call2_check(uint64_t rc, const void *arg)
 	dummy_func2(&a, &b);
 	v = a.u64 + a.u32 + b.u16 + b.u8;
 
-	if (v != rc) {
-		printf("%s@%d: invalid return value "
-			"expected=0x%" PRIx64 ", actual=0x%" PRIx64 "\n",
-			__func__, __LINE__, v, rc);
-		return -1;
-	}
-	return 0;
+	return cmp_res(__func__, v, rc, arg, arg, 0);
 }
 
 static const struct rte_bpf_xsym test_call2_xsym[] = {
@@ -2429,7 +2416,6 @@ test_call5_check(uint64_t rc, const void *arg)
 	v = 0;
 
 fail:
-
 	return cmp_res(__func__, v, rc, &v, &rc, sizeof(v));
 }
 
@@ -2458,6 +2444,7 @@ static const struct rte_bpf_xsym test_call5_xsym[] = {
 	},
 };
 
+/* all bpf test cases */
 static const struct bpf_test tests[] = {
 	{
 		.name = "test_store1",
@@ -2738,7 +2725,6 @@ run_test(const struct bpf_test *tst)
 	}
 
 	tst->prepare(tbuf);
-
 	rc = rte_bpf_exec(bpf, tbuf);
 	ret = tst->check_result(rc, tbuf);
 	if (ret != 0) {
@@ -2746,17 +2732,20 @@ run_test(const struct bpf_test *tst)
 			__func__, __LINE__, tst->name, ret, strerror(ret));
 	}
 
+	/* repeat the same test with jit, when possible */
 	rte_bpf_get_jit(bpf, &jit);
-	if (jit.func == NULL)
-		return 0;
-
-	tst->prepare(tbuf);
-	rc = jit.func(tbuf);
-	rv = tst->check_result(rc, tbuf);
-	ret |= rv;
-	if (rv != 0) {
-		printf("%s@%d: check_result(%s) failed, error: %d(%s);\n",
-			__func__, __LINE__, tst->name, rv, strerror(ret));
+	if (jit.func != NULL) {
+
+		tst->prepare(tbuf);
+		rc = jit.func(tbuf);
+		rv = tst->check_result(rc, tbuf);
+		ret |= rv;
+		if (rv != 0) {
+			printf("%s@%d: check_result(%s) failed, "
+				"error: %d(%s);\n",
+				__func__, __LINE__, tst->name,
+				rv, strerror(ret));
+		}
 	}
 
 	rte_bpf_destroy(bpf);
-- 
2.17.1

[dpdk-stable] [PATCH 2/5] bpf: fix add/sub min/max estimations

[Konstantin Ananyev]

eval_add()/eval_sub() not always correctly estimate
minimum and maximum possible values of add/sub operations.

Fixes: 8021917293d0 ("bpf: add extra validation for input BPF program")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org

Signed-off-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
---
 lib/librte_bpf/bpf_validate.c | 10 +++++-----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/librte_bpf/bpf_validate.c b/lib/librte_bpf/bpf_validate.c
index 6bd6f78e9..80d21fabb 100644
--- a/lib/librte_bpf/bpf_validate.c
+++ b/lib/librte_bpf/bpf_validate.c
@@ -226,7 +226,7 @@ eval_add(struct bpf_reg_val *rd, const struct bpf_reg_val *rs, uint64_t msk)
 	struct bpf_reg_val rv;
 
 	rv.u.min = (rd->u.min + rs->u.min) & msk;
-	rv.u.max = (rd->u.min + rs->u.max) & msk;
+	rv.u.max = (rd->u.max + rs->u.max) & msk;
 	rv.s.min = (rd->s.min + rs->s.min) & msk;
 	rv.s.max = (rd->s.max + rs->s.max) & msk;
 
@@ -254,10 +254,10 @@ eval_sub(struct bpf_reg_val *rd, const struct bpf_reg_val *rs, uint64_t msk)
 {
 	struct bpf_reg_val rv;
 
-	rv.u.min = (rd->u.min - rs->u.min) & msk;
-	rv.u.max = (rd->u.min - rs->u.max) & msk;
-	rv.s.min = (rd->s.min - rs->s.min) & msk;
-	rv.s.max = (rd->s.max - rs->s.max) & msk;
+	rv.u.min = (rd->u.min - rs->u.max) & msk;
+	rv.u.max = (rd->u.max - rs->u.min) & msk;
+	rv.s.min = (rd->s.min - rs->s.max) & msk;
+	rv.s.max = (rd->s.max - rs->s.min) & msk;
 
 	/*
 	 * if at least one of the operands is not constant,
-- 
2.17.1

[dpdk-stable] [PATCH v2 1/5] test/bpf: fix few small issues

[Konstantin Ananyev]

Address for few small issues:
 - unreachable return statement
 - failed test-case can finish with 'success' status

Also use unified cmp_res() function to check return value.

Fixes: a9de470cc7c0 ("test: move to app directory")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org

Signed-off-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
---
 app/test/test_bpf.c | 41 +++++++++++++++--------------------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)

diff --git a/app/test/test_bpf.c b/app/test/test_bpf.c
index ee534687a..4a61a7d7c 100644
--- a/app/test/test_bpf.c
+++ b/app/test/test_bpf.c
@@ -1797,13 +1797,6 @@ test_call1_check(uint64_t rc, const void *arg)
 	dummy_func1(arg, &v32, &v64);
 	v64 += v32;
 
-	if (v64 != rc) {
-		printf("%s@%d: invalid return value "
-			"expected=0x%" PRIx64 ", actual=0x%" PRIx64 "\n",
-			__func__, __LINE__, v64, rc);
-		return -1;
-	}
-	return 0;
 	return cmp_res(__func__, v64, rc, dv, dv, sizeof(*dv));
 }
 
@@ -1934,13 +1927,7 @@ test_call2_check(uint64_t rc, const void *arg)
 	dummy_func2(&a, &b);
 	v = a.u64 + a.u32 + b.u16 + b.u8;
 
-	if (v != rc) {
-		printf("%s@%d: invalid return value "
-			"expected=0x%" PRIx64 ", actual=0x%" PRIx64 "\n",
-			__func__, __LINE__, v, rc);
-		return -1;
-	}
-	return 0;
+	return cmp_res(__func__, v, rc, arg, arg, 0);
 }
 
 static const struct rte_bpf_xsym test_call2_xsym[] = {
@@ -2429,7 +2416,6 @@ test_call5_check(uint64_t rc, const void *arg)
 	v = 0;
 
 fail:
-
 	return cmp_res(__func__, v, rc, &v, &rc, sizeof(v));
 }
 
@@ -2458,6 +2444,7 @@ static const struct rte_bpf_xsym test_call5_xsym[] = {
 	},
 };
 
+/* all bpf test cases */
 static const struct bpf_test tests[] = {
 	{
 		.name = "test_store1",
@@ -2738,7 +2725,6 @@ run_test(const struct bpf_test *tst)
 	}
 
 	tst->prepare(tbuf);
-
 	rc = rte_bpf_exec(bpf, tbuf);
 	ret = tst->check_result(rc, tbuf);
 	if (ret != 0) {
@@ -2746,17 +2732,20 @@ run_test(const struct bpf_test *tst)
 			__func__, __LINE__, tst->name, ret, strerror(ret));
 	}
 
+	/* repeat the same test with jit, when possible */
 	rte_bpf_get_jit(bpf, &jit);
-	if (jit.func == NULL)
-		return 0;
-
-	tst->prepare(tbuf);
-	rc = jit.func(tbuf);
-	rv = tst->check_result(rc, tbuf);
-	ret |= rv;
-	if (rv != 0) {
-		printf("%s@%d: check_result(%s) failed, error: %d(%s);\n",
-			__func__, __LINE__, tst->name, rv, strerror(ret));
+	if (jit.func != NULL) {
+
+		tst->prepare(tbuf);
+		rc = jit.func(tbuf);
+		rv = tst->check_result(rc, tbuf);
+		ret |= rv;
+		if (rv != 0) {
+			printf("%s@%d: check_result(%s) failed, "
+				"error: %d(%s);\n",
+				__func__, __LINE__, tst->name,
+				rv, strerror(ret));
+		}
 	}
 
 	rte_bpf_destroy(bpf);
-- 
2.17.1

[dpdk-stable] [PATCH v2 2/5] bpf: fix add/sub min/max estimations

[Konstantin Ananyev]

eval_add()/eval_sub() not always correctly estimate
minimum and maximum possible values of add/sub operations.

Fixes: 8021917293d0 ("bpf: add extra validation for input BPF program")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org

Signed-off-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
---
 lib/librte_bpf/bpf_validate.c | 10 +++++-----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/librte_bpf/bpf_validate.c b/lib/librte_bpf/bpf_validate.c
index 6bd6f78e9..80d21fabb 100644
--- a/lib/librte_bpf/bpf_validate.c
+++ b/lib/librte_bpf/bpf_validate.c
@@ -226,7 +226,7 @@ eval_add(struct bpf_reg_val *rd, const struct bpf_reg_val *rs, uint64_t msk)
 	struct bpf_reg_val rv;
 
 	rv.u.min = (rd->u.min + rs->u.min) & msk;
-	rv.u.max = (rd->u.min + rs->u.max) & msk;
+	rv.u.max = (rd->u.max + rs->u.max) & msk;
 	rv.s.min = (rd->s.min + rs->s.min) & msk;
 	rv.s.max = (rd->s.max + rs->s.max) & msk;
 
@@ -254,10 +254,10 @@ eval_sub(struct bpf_reg_val *rd, const struct bpf_reg_val *rs, uint64_t msk)
 {
 	struct bpf_reg_val rv;
 
-	rv.u.min = (rd->u.min - rs->u.min) & msk;
-	rv.u.max = (rd->u.min - rs->u.max) & msk;
-	rv.s.min = (rd->s.min - rs->s.min) & msk;
-	rv.s.max = (rd->s.max - rs->s.max) & msk;
+	rv.u.min = (rd->u.min - rs->u.max) & msk;
+	rv.u.max = (rd->u.max - rs->u.min) & msk;
+	rv.s.min = (rd->s.min - rs->s.max) & msk;
+	rv.s.max = (rd->s.max - rs->s.min) & msk;
 
 	/*
 	 * if at least one of the operands is not constant,
-- 
2.17.1

Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH 1/5] test/bpf: fix few small issues

[Thomas Monjalon]

18/05/2020 17:52, Konstantin Ananyev:
> Address for few small issues:
>  - unreachable return statement
>  - failed test-case can finish with 'success' status
> 
> Also use unified cmp_res() function to check return value.
> 
> Fixes: a9de470cc7c0 ("test: move to app directory")

Looks like you don't want to track the original commits.
In this case, better to not add any fake reference.

> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> 
> Signed-off-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>