Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
[...]
>> Looks like we don't run bpf_sysctl_get_name tests on the CI.
>> CI executes the following binaries:
>> - test_progs{,-no_alu32,-cpuv4}
>> - test_verifier
>> - test_maps
>> test_progs is what is actively developed.
>> I agree with the reasoning behind this patch, however, could you
>> please
>> add a selftest demonstrating unsafe behaviour?
>
> Do you mean to write a selftest that demonstrate the current unsafe
> behavior of the bpf_sysctl_get_name helper? I could write something
> similar as the failing test_sysctl cases.
Yes, something like that, taking an unsafe action based on content of
the buffer after the helper call.
> I'm thinking that a more general test that would check that helpers
> don't access memory in a different way than advertised in their
> prototype would be more useful. But that's quite a different endeavor.
That would be interesting, I think.
Depends on how much time you need to write such a test.
[...]
