Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 6/6] selftests/bpf: Add a series of tests for bpf_snprintf

[Florent Revest]

On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 6:19 PM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 3:10 AM Florent Revest <revest@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 12:38 AM Andrii Nakryiko
> > <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:52 AM Florent Revest <revest@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The "positive" part tests all format specifiers when things go well.
> > > >
> > > > The "negative" part makes sure that incorrect format strings fail at
> > > > load time.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Florent Revest <revest@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >  .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/snprintf.c       | 125 ++++++++++++++++++
> > > >  .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_snprintf.c       |  73 ++++++++++
> > > >  .../bpf/progs/test_snprintf_single.c          |  20 +++
> > > >  3 files changed, 218 insertions(+)
> > > >  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/snprintf.c
> > > >  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_snprintf.c
> > > >  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_snprintf_single.c
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/snprintf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/snprintf.c
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 000000000000..a958c22aec75
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/snprintf.c
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,125 @@
> > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > > > +/* Copyright (c) 2021 Google LLC. */
> > > > +
> > > > +#include <test_progs.h>
> > > > +#include "test_snprintf.skel.h"
> > > > +#include "test_snprintf_single.skel.h"
> > > > +
> > > > +#define EXP_NUM_OUT  "-8 9 96 -424242 1337 DABBAD00"
> > > > +#define EXP_NUM_RET  sizeof(EXP_NUM_OUT)
> > > > +
> > > > +#define EXP_IP_OUT   "127.000.000.001 0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0001"
> > > > +#define EXP_IP_RET   sizeof(EXP_IP_OUT)
> > > > +
> > > > +/* The third specifier, %pB, depends on compiler inlining so don't check it */
> > > > +#define EXP_SYM_OUT  "schedule schedule+0x0/"
> > > > +#define MIN_SYM_RET  sizeof(EXP_SYM_OUT)
> > > > +
> > > > +/* The third specifier, %p, is a hashed pointer which changes on every reboot */
> > > > +#define EXP_ADDR_OUT "0000000000000000 ffff00000add4e55 "
> > > > +#define EXP_ADDR_RET sizeof(EXP_ADDR_OUT "unknownhashedptr")
> > > > +
> > > > +#define EXP_STR_OUT  "str1 longstr"
> > > > +#define EXP_STR_RET  sizeof(EXP_STR_OUT)
> > > > +
> > > > +#define EXP_OVER_OUT "%over"
> > > > +#define EXP_OVER_RET 10
> > > > +
> > > > +#define EXP_PAD_OUT "    4 000"
> > >
> > > Roughly 50% of the time I get failure for this test case:
> > >
> > > test_snprintf_positive:FAIL:pad_out unexpected pad_out: actual '    4
> > > 0000' != expected '    4 000'
> > >
> > > Re-running this test case immediately passes. Running again most
> > > probably fails. Please take a look.
> >
> > Do you have more information on how to reproduce this ?
> > I spinned up a VM at 87bd9e602 with ./vmtest -s and then run this script:
> >
> > #!/bin/sh
> > for i in `seq 1000`
> > do
> >   ./test_progs -t snprintf
> >   if [ $? -ne 0 ];
> >   then
> >     echo FAILURE
> >     exit 1
> >   fi
> > done
> >
> > The thousand executions passed.
> >
> > This is a bit concerning because your unexpected_pad_out seems to have
> > an extra '0' so it ends up with strlen(pad_out)=11 but
> > sizeof(pad_out)=10. The actual string writing is not really done by
> > our helper code but by the snprintf implementation (str and str_size
> > are only given to snprintf()) so I'd expect the truncation to work
> > well there. I'm a bit puzzled
>
> I'm puzzled too, have no idea. I also can't repro this with vmtest.sh.
> But I can quite reliably reproduce with my local ArchLinux-based qemu
> image with different config (see [0] for config itself). So please try
> with my config and see if that helps to repro. If not, I'll have to
> debug it on my own later.
>
>   [0] https://gist.github.com/anakryiko/4b6ae21680842bdeacca8fa99d378048

I tried that config on the same commit 87bd9e602 (bpf-next/master)
with my debian-based qemu image and I still can't reproduce the issue
:| If I can be of any help let me know, I'd be happy to help