Let's assert if we ever happen to pass 0 to one of the log functions.
With the preceding commit to return -EIO from log_*(), passing 0 wouldn't
affect the return value any more, but it is still most likely an error.
The unit test code is an exception: we fairly often pass the return value
to print it, before checking what it is. So let's assert that we're not
passing 0 in non-test code. As with the previous check for %m, this is only
done in developer mode. We are depending on external code setting
errno correctly for us, which might not always be true, and which we can't
test, so we shouldn't assert, but just handle this gracefully.
I did a bunch of greps to try to figure out if there are any places where
we're passing 0 on purpose, and couldn't find any.
The one place that failed in tests is adjusted.
About "zerook" in the name: I wanted the suffix to be unambiguous. It's a
single "word" because each of the words in log_full_errno is also meaningful,
and having one term use two words would be confusing.
- Pin trivial bpf programs to bpf filesystem, compose BPFProgram= option
string and pass it to a unit. Programs store `0` in r0 BPF register for
denying action, e.g. drop a packet.
- Load trivial BPF programs
- Test is skipped if not run under root or if can not lock enough
memory.
- For egress and ingress hooks, test BPFProgram= option along with
with IP{Egress|Ingress}FilterPath=, expected result should not depend on
which rule is executed first.
Expected results for BPF_CGROUP_INET_INGRESS:
5 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 89ms
For BPF_CGROUP_INET_SOCK_CREATE:
ping: socket: Operation not permitted
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
Julia Kartseva