linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 bpf-next 3/3] selftests/bpf: Add test for attaching kprobe with long event names

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: <Z_z161cpsaR2uQm3@krava>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 13:47:55 +0200
From: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>
To: Feng Yang <yangfeng59949@....com>
Cc: ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org,
	martin.lau@...ux.dev, eddyz87@...il.com, song@...nel.org,
	yonghong.song@...ux.dev, john.fastabend@...il.com,
	kpsingh@...nel.org, sdf@...ichev.me, haoluo@...gle.com,
	hengqi.chen@...il.com, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 bpf-next 3/3] selftests/bpf: Add test for attaching
 kprobe with long event names

On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 05:34:02PM +0800, Feng Yang wrote:
> From: Feng Yang <yangfeng@...inos.cn>
> 
> This test verifies that attaching kprobe/kretprobe with long event names
> does not trigger EINVAL errors.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Feng Yang <yangfeng@...inos.cn>
> ---
>  .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/attach_probe.c   | 35 +++++++++++++++++++
>  .../selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c    |  5 +++
>  .../bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod_kfunc.h        |  2 ++
>  3 files changed, 42 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/attach_probe.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/attach_probe.c
> index 9b7f36f39c32..633b5eb4379b 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/attach_probe.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/attach_probe.c
> @@ -168,6 +168,39 @@ static void test_attach_uprobe_long_event_name(void)
>  	test_attach_probe_manual__destroy(skel);
>  }
>  
> +/* attach kprobe/kretprobe long event name testings */
> +static void test_attach_kprobe_long_event_name(void)
> +{
> +	DECLARE_LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_kprobe_opts, kprobe_opts);
> +	struct bpf_link *kprobe_link, *kretprobe_link;
> +	struct test_attach_probe_manual *skel;
> +
> +	skel = test_attach_probe_manual__open_and_load();
> +	if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "skel_kprobe_manual_open_and_load"))
> +		return;
> +
> +	/* manual-attach kprobe/kretprobe */
> +	kprobe_opts.attach_mode = PROBE_ATTACH_MODE_LEGACY;
> +	kprobe_opts.retprobe = false;
> +	kprobe_link = bpf_program__attach_kprobe_opts(skel->progs.handle_kprobe,
> +						      "bpf_kfunc_looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong_name",
> +						      &kprobe_opts);
> +	if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(kprobe_link, "attach_kprobe_long_event_name"))
> +		goto cleanup;
> +	skel->links.handle_kprobe = kprobe_link;
> +
> +	kprobe_opts.retprobe = true;
> +	kretprobe_link = bpf_program__attach_kprobe_opts(skel->progs.handle_kretprobe,
> +							 "bpf_kfunc_looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong_name",
> +							 &kprobe_opts);
> +	if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(kretprobe_link, "attach_kretprobe_long_event_name"))
> +		goto cleanup;
> +	skel->links.handle_kretprobe = kretprobe_link;
> +
> +cleanup:
> +	test_attach_probe_manual__destroy(skel);
> +}
> +
>  static void test_attach_probe_auto(struct test_attach_probe *skel)
>  {
>  	struct bpf_link *uprobe_err_link;
> @@ -371,6 +404,8 @@ void test_attach_probe(void)
>  
>  	if (test__start_subtest("uprobe-long_name"))
>  		test_attach_uprobe_long_event_name();
> +	if (test__start_subtest("kprobe-long_name"))
> +		test_attach_kprobe_long_event_name();
>  
>  cleanup:
>  	test_attach_probe__destroy(skel);
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c
> index f38eaf0d35ef..439f6c2b2456 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c
> @@ -1053,6 +1053,10 @@ __bpf_kfunc int bpf_kfunc_st_ops_inc10(struct st_ops_args *args)
>  	return args->a;
>  }
>  
> +__bpf_kfunc void bpf_kfunc_looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong_name(void)
> +{
> +}

does it need to be a kfunc? IIUC it just needs to be a normal kernel/module function

jirka


> +
>  BTF_KFUNCS_START(bpf_testmod_check_kfunc_ids)
>  BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_testmod_test_mod_kfunc)
>  BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test1)
> @@ -1093,6 +1097,7 @@ BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_kfunc_st_ops_test_prologue, KF_TRUSTED_ARGS | KF_SLEEPABL
>  BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_kfunc_st_ops_test_epilogue, KF_TRUSTED_ARGS | KF_SLEEPABLE)
>  BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_kfunc_st_ops_test_pro_epilogue, KF_TRUSTED_ARGS | KF_SLEEPABLE)
>  BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_kfunc_st_ops_inc10, KF_TRUSTED_ARGS)
> +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_kfunc_looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong_name)
>  BTF_KFUNCS_END(bpf_testmod_check_kfunc_ids)
>  
>  static int bpf_testmod_ops_init(struct btf *btf)
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod_kfunc.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod_kfunc.h
> index b58817938deb..e5b833140418 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod_kfunc.h
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod_kfunc.h
> @@ -159,4 +159,6 @@ void bpf_kfunc_trusted_task_test(struct task_struct *ptr) __ksym;
>  void bpf_kfunc_trusted_num_test(int *ptr) __ksym;
>  void bpf_kfunc_rcu_task_test(struct task_struct *ptr) __ksym;
>  
> +void bpf_kfunc_looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong_name(void) __ksym;
> +
>  #endif /* _BPF_TESTMOD_KFUNC_H */
> -- 
> 2.43.0
>