Re: [bpf-next v3 02/12] selftests/bpf: Avoid a clobbering of errno

From: Andrii Nakryiko
Date: Wed Jul 10 2019 - 19:52:08 EST


On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 3:42 PM Krzesimir Nowak <krzesimir@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Save errno right after bpf_prog_test_run returns, so we later check
> the error code actually set by bpf_prog_test_run, not by some libcap
> function.
>
> Changes since v1:
> - Fix the "Fixes:" tag to mention actual commit that introduced the
> bug
>
> Changes since v2:
> - Move the declaration so it fits the reverse christmas tree style.
>
> Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Fixes: 832c6f2c29ec ("bpf: test make sure to run unpriv test cases in test_verifier")
> Signed-off-by: Krzesimir Nowak <krzesimir@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> index b8d065623ead..3fe126e0083b 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> @@ -823,16 +823,18 @@ static int do_prog_test_run(int fd_prog, bool unpriv, uint32_t expected_val,
> __u8 tmp[TEST_DATA_LEN << 2];
> __u32 size_tmp = sizeof(tmp);
> uint32_t retval;
> + int saved_errno;
> int err;
>
> if (unpriv)
> set_admin(true);
> err = bpf_prog_test_run(fd_prog, 1, data, size_data,
> tmp, &size_tmp, &retval, NULL);

Given err is either 0 or -1, how about instead making err useful right
here without extra variable?

if (bpf_prog_test_run(...))
err = errno;

> + saved_errno = errno;
> if (unpriv)
> set_admin(false);
> if (err) {
> - switch (errno) {
> + switch (saved_errno) {
> case 524/*ENOTSUPP*/:

ENOTSUPP is defined in include/linux/errno.h, is there any problem
with using this in selftests?

> printf("Did not run the program (not supported) ");
> return 0;
> --
> 2.20.1
>