Re: [bpf-next] selftests/bpf: refactor snprintf_btf test to use bpf_strncmp

From: Eduard Zingerman

Date: Wed Nov 05 2025 - 17:52:20 EST


On Wed, 2025-11-05 at 14:45 -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 12:14 PM Hoyeon Lee <hoyeon.lee@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > The netif_receive_skb BPF program used in snprintf_btf test still uses
> > a custom __strncmp. This is unnecessary as the bpf_strncmp helper is
> > available and provides the same functionality.
> >
> > This commit refactors the test to use the bpf_strncmp helper, removing
> > the redundant custom implementation.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Hoyeon Lee <hoyeon.lee@xxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > .../selftests/bpf/progs/netif_receive_skb.c | 15 +--------------
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 14 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/netif_receive_skb.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/netif_receive_skb.c
> > index 9e067dcbf607..186b8c82b9e6 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/netif_receive_skb.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/netif_receive_skb.c
> > @@ -31,19 +31,6 @@ struct {
> > __type(value, char[STRSIZE]);
> > } strdata SEC(".maps");
> >
> > -static int __strncmp(const void *m1, const void *m2, size_t len)
> > -{
> > - const unsigned char *s1 = m1;
> > - const unsigned char *s2 = m2;
> > - int i, delta = 0;
> > -
> > - for (i = 0; i < len; i++) {
> > - delta = s1[i] - s2[i];
> > - if (delta || s1[i] == 0 || s2[i] == 0)
> > - break;
> > - }
> > - return delta;
> > -}
> >
> > #if __has_builtin(__builtin_btf_type_id)
> > #define TEST_BTF(_str, _type, _flags, _expected, ...) \
> > @@ -69,7 +56,7 @@ static int __strncmp(const void *m1, const void *m2, size_t len)
> > &_ptr, sizeof(_ptr), _hflags); \
> > if (ret) \
> > break; \
> > - _cmp = __strncmp(_str, _expectedval, EXPECTED_STRSIZE); \
> > + _cmp = bpf_strncmp(_str, EXPECTED_STRSIZE, _expectedval); \
>
> Though it's equivalent, the point of the test is to be heavy
> for the verifier with open coded __strncmp().
>
> pw-bot: cr

I double checked that before acking, the test was added as a part of [1].
So it seems to be focused on bpf_snprintf_btf(), not on scalability.
And it's not that heavy in terms of instructions budget:

File Program Verdict Insns States
----------------------- ----------------------- ------- ----- ------
netif_receive_skb.bpf.o trace_netif_receive_skb success 18152 629


[1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/1601292670-1616-5-git-send-email-alan.maguire@xxxxxxxxxx/