On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 10:59:13AM -0800, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> On 12/12, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 10:27:24AM -0800, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > > The following prog types don't make sense without bpf cgroup:
> > > * BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SKB
> > > * BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SOCK
> > > * BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SOCK_ADDR
> > >
> > > Skip running verifier tests that exercise these prog types if
> > > kernel is built without proper support.
> > >
> > > See commit e5c504858a18 ("selftests/bpf: skip verifier sockmap tests
> > > on kernels without support") for original motivation.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <s...@google.com>
> > > ---
> > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> > > b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> > > index f5015566ae1b..b5470a399996 100644
> > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> > > @@ -44,6 +44,7 @@
> > > /* fallback to all features enabled */
> > > # define CONFIG_BPF_STREAM_PARSER 1
> > > # define CONFIG_XDP_SOCKETS 1
> > > +# define CONFIG_CGROUP_BPF 1
> >
> > I really don't like where these is going.
> > I think previous set should be reverted.
> > This is not a scalable approach.
> > Use libbpf probing approach to check whether feature is present instead.
> I can probably add runtime probing instead of depending on compile-time
> config, but I think that we would still need some per-test mechanism
> to say that it depends on feature X (per-test .config_disabled or
> similar).
> Will moving these checks to runtime address your concern? (there is sill a
> scalability issue though)
you said it youself. config_disabled doesn't scale.
hence it's not a solution regardless of macro or runtime probing.
