linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH perf/core 14/22] selftests/bpf: Add uprobe/usdt syscall tests

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: <aAoza2tZYEo6gvKF@krava>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2025 14:49:47 +0200
From: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	x86@...nel.org, Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
	Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
	Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
	Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@...cle.com>,
	David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
	Thomas Weißschuh <thomas@...ch.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH perf/core 14/22] selftests/bpf: Add uprobe/usdt syscall
 tests

On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 10:40:58AM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 2:47 PM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Adding tests for optimized uprobe/usdt probes.
> >
> > Checking that we get expected trampoline and attached bpf programs
> > get executed properly.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
> > ---
> >  .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c | 278 +++++++++++++++++-
> >  .../bpf/progs/uprobe_syscall_executed.c       |  37 +++
> >  2 files changed, 314 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> 
> [...]
> 
> >  static void __test_uprobe_syscall(void)
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_syscall_executed.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_syscall_executed.c
> > index 2e1b689ed4fb..7bb4338c3ee2 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_syscall_executed.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_syscall_executed.c
> > @@ -1,6 +1,8 @@
> >  // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> >  #include "vmlinux.h"
> >  #include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
> > +#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
> > +#include <bpf/usdt.bpf.h>
> >  #include <string.h>
> >
> >  struct pt_regs regs;
> > @@ -9,9 +11,44 @@ char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
> >
> >  int executed = 0;
> >
> > +SEC("uprobe")
> > +int BPF_UPROBE(test_uprobe)
> > +{
> 
> I'd add a PID filter to all of these to guard against potential
> unrelated triggerings if in the future there is some parallel test
> that attaches to all uprobes or something like that. Better safe than
> sorry.

ok, makes sense, will add

thanks,
jirka

> 
> > +       executed++;
> > +       return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +SEC("uretprobe")
> > +int BPF_URETPROBE(test_uretprobe)
> > +{
> > +       executed++;
> > +       return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +SEC("uprobe.multi")
> > +int test_uprobe_multi(struct pt_regs *ctx)
> > +{
> > +       executed++;
> > +       return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> >  SEC("uretprobe.multi")
> >  int test_uretprobe_multi(struct pt_regs *ctx)
> >  {
> >         executed++;
> >         return 0;
> >  }
> > +
> > +SEC("uprobe.session")
> > +int test_uprobe_session(struct pt_regs *ctx)
> > +{
> > +       executed++;
> > +       return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +SEC("usdt")
> > +int test_usdt(struct pt_regs *ctx)
> > +{
> > +       executed++;
> > +       return 0;
> > +}
> > --
> > 2.49.0
> >