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: <5957081.DvuYhMxLoT@7940hx>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2026 14:53:47 +0800
From: Menglong Dong <menglong.dong@...ux.dev>
To: menglong8.dong@...il.com, ast@...nel.org, bot+bpf-ci@...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

On 2026/1/16 12:09 bot+bpf-ci@...nel.org write:
> > 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.

You are totally right, my bad :/

> 
> > 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
>