linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 03/12] bpf: selftests: Fix fentry test kfunc prototypes

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]

Message-ID: <gwrlw7wtc72vz3ky2pltvpoadtjlezv6kdrs6wf3ptsecyu2sh@aexbk4rotm3x>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 10:58:26 -0600
From: Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>
To: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>
Cc: shuah@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org, 
	eddyz87@...il.com, ast@...nel.org, quentin@...valent.com, alan.maguire@...cle.com, 
	acme@...nel.org, martin.lau@...ux.dev, song@...nel.org, yonghong.song@...ux.dev, 
	john.fastabend@...il.com, kpsingh@...nel.org, sdf@...gle.com, haoluo@...gle.com, 
	mykolal@...com, bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...a.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 03/12] bpf: selftests: Fix fentry test kfunc
 prototypes

On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 03:28:36PM GMT, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 08, 2024 at 03:15:59PM -0600, Daniel Xu wrote:
> > The prototypes in progs/get_func_ip_test.c were not in line with how the
> > actual kfuncs are defined in net/bpf/test_run.c. This causes compilation
> > errors when kfunc prototypes are generated from BTF.
> > 
> > Fix by aligning with actual kfunc definitions.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>
> > ---
> >  .../testing/selftests/bpf/progs/get_func_ip_test.c | 14 +++++++-------
> >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/get_func_ip_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/get_func_ip_test.c
> > index 8956eb78a226..a89596f7585d 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/get_func_ip_test.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/get_func_ip_test.c
> > @@ -5,13 +5,13 @@
> >  
> >  char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
> >  
> > -extern const void bpf_fentry_test1 __ksym;
> > -extern const void bpf_fentry_test2 __ksym;
> > -extern const void bpf_fentry_test3 __ksym;
> > -extern const void bpf_fentry_test4 __ksym;
> > -extern const void bpf_modify_return_test __ksym;
> > -extern const void bpf_fentry_test6 __ksym;
> > -extern const void bpf_fentry_test7 __ksym;
> > +extern int bpf_fentry_test1(int a) __ksym;
> 
> hum, the only registered one as kfunc is bpf_fentry_test1, to allow fmodret
> also there's bpf_fentry_test9 as kfunc, which AFAICS is not really needed

I think bpf_modify_return_test() is also registered. But otherwise yeah,
I think I was overaggressive here. Are you thinking something like this?


diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/get_func_ip_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/get_func_ip_test.c
index a89596f7585d..2011cacdeb18 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/get_func_ip_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/get_func_ip_test.c
@@ -6,12 +6,11 @@
 char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";

 extern int bpf_fentry_test1(int a) __ksym;
-extern int bpf_fentry_test2(int a, __u64 b) __ksym;
-extern int bpf_fentry_test3(char a, int b, __u64 c) __ksym;
-extern int bpf_fentry_test4(void *a, char b, int c, __u64 d) __ksym;
 extern int bpf_modify_return_test(int a, int *b) __ksym;
-extern int bpf_fentry_test6(__u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, void *e, __u64 f) __ksym;
-extern int bpf_fentry_test7(struct bpf_fentry_test_t *arg) __ksym;
+
+extern const void bpf_fentry_test2 __ksym;
+extern const void bpf_fentry_test3 __ksym;
+extern const void bpf_fentry_test4 __ksym;

 extern bool CONFIG_X86_KERNEL_IBT __kconfig __weak;