linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv6 bpf-next 13/16] selftests/bpf: Add uprobe session single consumer test

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: <CAEf4BzY9pp2bQXBwxcS4qLoPRRHrsKjA1UWdpZi3inkuz0PCDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2024 19:25:59 -0700
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, 
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, 
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org, Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>, 
	Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>, 
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>, 
	Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, 
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 bpf-next 13/16] selftests/bpf: Add uprobe session single
 consumer test

On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 1:12 PM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Testing that the session ret_handler bypass works on single
> uprobe with multiple consumers, each with different session
> ignore return value.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
> ---
>  .../bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_multi_test.c        | 33 ++++++++++++++
>  .../bpf/progs/uprobe_multi_session_single.c   | 44 +++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 77 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_multi_session_single.c
>

see the nit, but regardless:

Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>

[...]

> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_multi_session_single.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_multi_session_single.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..1fa53d3785f6
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_multi_session_single.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +#include <linux/bpf.h>
> +#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
> +#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
> +#include <stdbool.h>
> +#include "bpf_kfuncs.h"
> +#include "bpf_misc.h"
> +
> +char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
> +
> +__u64 uprobe_session_result[3] = {};
> +int pid = 0;
> +
> +static int uprobe_multi_check(void *ctx, bool is_return, int idx)

nit: you don't use is_return

> +{
> +       if (bpf_get_current_pid_tgid() >> 32 != pid)
> +               return 1;
> +
> +       uprobe_session_result[idx]++;
> +
> +       /* only consumer 1 executes return probe */
> +       if (idx == 0 || idx == 2)
> +               return 1;
> +
> +       return 0;
> +}
> +
> +SEC("uprobe.session//proc/self/exe:uprobe_multi_func_1")
> +int uprobe_0(struct pt_regs *ctx)
> +{
> +       return uprobe_multi_check(ctx, bpf_session_is_return(), 0);
> +}
> +
> +SEC("uprobe.session//proc/self/exe:uprobe_multi_func_1")
> +int uprobe_1(struct pt_regs *ctx)
> +{
> +       return uprobe_multi_check(ctx, bpf_session_is_return(), 1);
> +}
> +
> +SEC("uprobe.session//proc/self/exe:uprobe_multi_func_1")
> +int uprobe_2(struct pt_regs *ctx)
> +{
> +       return uprobe_multi_check(ctx, bpf_session_is_return(), 2);
> +}
> --
> 2.46.2
>