On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 3:42 PM Krzesimir Nowak <krzesi...@kinvolk.io> wrote:
>
> This prints a message when the error is about program type being not
> supported by the test runner or because of permissions problem. This
> is to see if the program we expected to run was actually executed.
>
> The messages are open-coded because strerror(ENOTSUPP) returns
> "Unknown error 524".
>
> Changes since v2:
> - Also print "FAIL" on an unexpected bpf_prog_test_run error, so there
> is a corresponding "FAIL" message for each failed test.
>
> Signed-off-by: Krzesimir Nowak <krzesi...@kinvolk.io>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 17 +++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> index c5514daf8865..b8d065623ead 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> @@ -831,11 +831,20 @@ static int do_prog_test_run(int fd_prog, bool unpriv,
> uint32_t expected_val,
> tmp, &size_tmp, &retval, NULL);
> if (unpriv)
> set_admin(false);
> - if (err && errno != 524/*ENOTSUPP*/ && errno != EPERM) {
> - printf("Unexpected bpf_prog_test_run error ");
> - return err;
> + if (err) {
> + switch (errno) {
> + case 524/*ENOTSUPP*/:
> + printf("Did not run the program (not supported) ");
> + return 0;
> + case EPERM:
> + printf("Did not run the program (no permission) ");
Let's add "SKIP: " prefix to these?
> + return 0;
> + default:
> + printf("FAIL: Unexpected bpf_prog_test_run error (%s)
> ", strerror(saved_errno));
> + return err;
> + }
> }
> - if (!err && retval != expected_val &&
> + if (retval != expected_val &&
> expected_val != POINTER_VALUE) {
> printf("FAIL retval %d != %d ", retval, expected_val);
> return 1;
> --
> 2.20.1
>
