[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZmmXl1NHgwOEXy4F@krava>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 14:41:59 +0200
From: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>
To: Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>, 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 Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 10:58:26AM -0600, Daniel Xu wrote:
> 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?
yes, looks good
>
>
> 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;
I did not realize bpf_fentry_test6/7 are not used.. ok
thanks,
jirka
> +
> +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;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists