On Mon, 2025-08-18 at 19:04 +0100, Mykyta Yatsenko wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/veristat.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/veristat.c
> index d532dd82a3a8..3ba06f532bfa 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/veristat.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/veristat.c
> @@ -181,6 +181,12 @@ struct var_preset {
> bool applied;
> };
>
> +enum dump_mode {
> + NO_DUMP = 0,
> + XLATED,
> + JITED,
> +};
> +
> static struct env {
> char **filenames;
> int filename_cnt;
> @@ -227,6 +233,7 @@ static struct env {
> char orig_cgroup[PATH_MAX];
> char stat_cgroup[PATH_MAX];
> int memory_peak_fd;
> + enum dump_mode dump_mode;
> } env;
>
> static int libbpf_print_fn(enum libbpf_print_level level, const char *format, va_list args)
> @@ -295,6 +302,7 @@ static const struct argp_option opts[] = {
> "Force BPF verifier failure on register invariant violation (BPF_F_TEST_REG_INVARIANTS program flag)" },
> { "top-src-lines", 'S', "N", 0, "Emit N most frequent source code lines" },
> { "set-global-vars", 'G', "GLOBAL", 0, "Set global variables provided in the expression, for example \"var1 = 1\"" },
> + { "dump", 'p', "DUMP", 0, "Print BPF program dump" },
Nit: describe that it should be either '-p xlated' or '-p jited'?
> {},
> };
>
> @@ -427,6 +435,16 @@ static error_t parse_arg(int key, char *arg, struct argp_state *state)
> return err;
> }
> break;
> + case 'p':
> + if (strcmp(arg, "jited") == 0) {
> + env.dump_mode = JITED;
> + } else if (strcmp(arg, "xlated") == 0) {
> + env.dump_mode = XLATED;
> + } else {
> + fprintf(stderr, "Unrecognized dump mode '%s'\n", arg);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> + break;
> default:
> return ARGP_ERR_UNKNOWN;
> }
> @@ -1554,6 +1572,26 @@ static int parse_rvalue(const char *val, struct rvalue *rvalue)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static void dump(int prog_fd)
^^^^^^^^^^^
Nit: prog_id
> +{
> + char command[512];
> + char buf[1024];
> + FILE *fp;
> +
> + snprintf(command, sizeof(command), "bpftool prog dump %s id %d",
> + env.dump_mode == JITED ? "jited" : "xlated", prog_fd);
> + fp = popen(command, "r");
Silly question, would it be sufficient to just do "system()" and forgo
the loop below?
> + if (!fp) {
> + fprintf(stderr, "Can't run bpftool\n");
> + return;
> + }
> +
Could you please insert some header (program name)/footer (newline)?
> + while (fgets(buf, sizeof(buf), fp))
> + printf("%s", buf);
> +
> + pclose(fp);
> +}
> +
> static int process_prog(const char *filename, struct bpf_object *obj, struct bpf_program *prog)
> {
> const char *base_filename = basename(strdupa(filename));
> @@ -1630,8 +1668,11 @@ static int process_prog(const char *filename, struct bpf_object *obj, struct bpf
>
> memset(&info, 0, info_len);
> fd = bpf_program__fd(prog);
> - if (fd > 0 && bpf_prog_get_info_by_fd(fd, &info, &info_len) == 0)
> + if (fd > 0 && bpf_prog_get_info_by_fd(fd, &info, &info_len) == 0) {
> stats->stats[JITED_SIZE] = info.jited_prog_len;
> + if (env.dump_mode != NO_DUMP)
> + dump(info.id);
> + }
>
> parse_verif_log(buf, buf_sz, stats);
>
Note: below this hunk there is the following code:
if (env.verbose) {
printf(format: "PROCESSING %s/%s, DURATION US: %ld, VERDICT: %s, VERIFIER LOG:\n%s\n",
filename, prog_name, stats->stats[DURATION],
err ? "failure" : "success", buf);
}
It looks a bit strange, that program is printed before the above
header is printed.
