On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 7:59 PM KP Singh <kpsi...@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 7:47 PM Alexei Starovoitov
> <alexei.starovoi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 04:31:31PM +0100, KP Singh wrote:
> > > +
> > > +struct storage {
> > > + void *inode;
> > > + unsigned int value;
> > > + /* Lock ensures that spin locked versions of local stoage operations
> > > + * also work, most operations in this tests are still single
> > > threaded
> > > + */
> > > + struct bpf_spin_lock lock;
> > > +};
> >
> > I think it's a good idea to test spin_lock in local_storage,
> > but it seems the test is not doing it fully.
> > It's only adding it to the storage, but the program is not accessing it.
>
> I added it here just to check if the offset calculations (map->spin_lock_off)
> are correctly happening for these new maps.
>
> As mentioned in the updates, I do intend to generalize
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/map_tests/sk_storage_map.c which already has
> the threading logic to exercise bpf_spin_lock in storage maps.
>
Actually, after I added simple bpf_spin_{lock, unlock} to the test programs, I
ended up realizing that we have not exposed spin locks to LSM programs
for now, this is because they inherit the tracing helpers.
I saw the docs mention that these are not exposed to tracing programs due to
insufficient preemption checks. Do you think it would be okay to allow them
for LSM programs?
- KP
> Hope this is an okay plan?
