linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: test bpf_get_func_arg() for tp

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: <379dc407b6e024b766ad40bfb899f8f6ce92e869d23c748275d0c054d62a569a@mail.kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2026 04:09:04 +0000 (UTC)
From: bot+bpf-ci@...nel.org
To: menglong8.dong@...il.com,ast@...nel.org
Cc: daniel@...earbox.net,john.fastabend@...il.com,andrii@...nel.org,martin.lau@...ux.dev,eddyz87@...il.com,song@...nel.org,yonghong.song@...ux.dev,kpsingh@...nel.org,sdf@...ichev.me,haoluo@...gle.com,jolsa@...nel.org,mattbobrowski@...gle.com,rostedt@...dmis.org,mhiramat@...nel.org,mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,bpf@...r.kernel.org,linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,ast@...nel.org,andrii@...nel.org,daniel@...earbox.net,martin.lau@...nel.org,eddyz87@...il.com,yonghong.song@...ux.dev,clm@...a.com,ihor.solodrai@...ux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: test bpf_get_func_arg() for tp_btf

> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/get_func_args_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/get_func_args_test.c
> index 64a9c95d4acf..848fab952719 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/get_func_args_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/get_func_args_test.c
> @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ void test_get_func_args_test(void)
>
>  	ASSERT_EQ(topts.retval >> 16, 1, "test_run");
>  	ASSERT_EQ(topts.retval & 0xffff, 1234 + 29, "test_run");
> +	ASSERT_OK(trigger_module_test_read(1), "trigger_read");
>
>  	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->test1_result, 1, "test1_result");
>  	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->test2_result, 1, "test2_result");
>  	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->test3_result, 1, "test3_result");
>  	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->test4_result, 1, "test4_result");

The trigger_module_test_read() call fires the new tracepoints which run the
tp_test1 and tp_test2 BPF programs. These programs set test5_result and
test6_result respectively. However, there are no assertions here to verify
that test5_result and test6_result equal 1.

Should there be:

    ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->test5_result, 1, "test5_result");
    ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->test6_result, 1, "test6_result");

Without these assertions, the test will pass even if the tp_btf
bpf_get_func_arg() functionality is broken.

> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/get_func_args_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/get_func_args_test.c

[ ... ]

> +__u64 test5_result = 0;
> +SEC("tp_btf/bpf_testmod_fentry_test1_tp")
> +int BPF_PROG(tp_test1)
> +{

[ ... ]

> +__u64 test6_result = 0;
> +SEC("tp_btf/bpf_testmod_fentry_test2_tp")
> +int BPF_PROG(tp_test2)
> +{

These result variables are set by the BPF programs but never checked in the
test driver, as noted above.


---
AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug.
See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md

CI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/21055137351