linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: add test for legacy/perf kprobe/uprobe attach mode

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 6 Feb 2023 12:05:39 -0800
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To:     menglong8.dong@...il.com
Cc:     alan.maguire@...cle.com, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
        andrii@...nel.org, martin.lau@...ux.dev, song@...nel.org,
        yhs@...com, john.fastabend@...il.com, kpsingh@...nel.org,
        sdf@...gle.com, haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Menglong Dong <imagedong@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: add test for legacy/perf
 kprobe/uprobe attach mode

On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 7:18 PM <menglong8.dong@...il.com> wrote:
>
> From: Menglong Dong <imagedong@...cent.com>
>
> Add the testing for kprobe/uprobe attaching in legacy and perf mode.
> And the testing passed:
>
> ./test_progs -t attach_probe
> $5       attach_probe:OK
> Summary: 1/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
>
> Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong <imagedong@...cent.com>
> ---

Do you mind refactoring attach_probe test into multiple subtests,
where each subtest will only test one of the attach mode and type. The
reason is that libbpf CI runs tests with latest selftests and libbpf
against old kernels (4.9 and 5.5, currently). Due to attach_probe
testing all these uprobe/kprobe attach modes with extra features (like
cookie, ref count, etc), we had to disable attach_probe test in libbpf
CI on old kernels.

If we can split each individual uprobe/kprobe mode, that will give us
flexibility to selectively allowlist those tests that don't force
libbpf to use newer features (like cookies, LINK or PERF mode, etc).

It would be a great improvement and highly appreciated! If you don't
mind doing this, let's do the split of existing use cases into subtest
in a separate patch, and then add PERF/LEGACY/LINK mode tests on top
of that patch.

>  .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/attach_probe.c   | 61 ++++++++++++++++++-
>  .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_attach_probe.c   | 32 ++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 92 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>

[...]