All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com>
To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 09/13] selftests/bpf: Change uprobe syscall tests to use nop10
Date: Wed, 27 May 2026 11:58:09 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ahbAMSyTfWgxrPHl@krava> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260526211518.3937F1F000E9@smtp.kernel.org>

On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 09:15:17PM +0000, sashiko-bot@kernel.org wrote:
> Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 3 potential issue(s) to consider:
> - [Medium] The usdt.h header was not updated to redefine the default USDT_NOP to 10 bytes, which will cause the usdt test to reliably fail.
> - [Medium] check_detach() only verifies the restoration of the first 5 bytes of the 10-byte NOP and uses a signed char array that can cause compiler warnings.
> - [Medium] Benchmark functions and external reporting names were not updated to reflect the new 10-byte NOP behavior, producing misleading metrics.
> --
> 
> commit d8fb3aec4d3eab73b6231c402e78efd3cd47f8f0
> Author: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
> 
> selftests/bpf: Change uprobe syscall tests to use nop10
> 
> Optimized uprobes are now on top of 10-bytes nop instructions,
> reflect that in existing tests.
> 
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/benchs/bench_trigger.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/benchs/bench_trigger.c
> > index 2f22ec61667b9..a60b8173cdc46 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/benchs/bench_trigger.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/benchs/bench_trigger.c
> > @@ -398,7 +398,7 @@ static void *uprobe_producer_ret(void *input)
> >  #ifdef __x86_64__
> >  __nocf_check __weak void uprobe_target_nop5(void)
> >  {
> > -	asm volatile (".byte 0x0f, 0x1f, 0x44, 0x00, 0x00");
> > +	asm volatile (".byte 0x66, 0x2e, 0x0f, 0x1f, 0x84, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00");
> >  }
> 
> [Severity: Medium]
> This isn't a bug, but the function name uprobe_target_nop5 and the associated
> reporting names in the benchmark registry (like uprobe-nop5) still use the
> nop5 suffix. Since they now use a 10-byte NOP, should these be updated to
> nop10 to avoid misleading benchmark metrics?

it's changed in following patch that renames the related benchmarks
  selftests/bpf: Change uprobe/usdt trigger bench code to use nop10

> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c
> > index 955a37751b52d..90851d1e4624f 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c
> [ ... ]
> > @@ -430,9 +432,11 @@ static void *check_attach(struct uprobe_syscall_executed *skel, trigger_t trigge
> >  
> >  static void check_detach(void *addr, void *tramp)
> >  {
> > +	static const char nop10_prefix[] = { 0x66, 0x2e, 0x0f, 0x1f, 0x84 };
> > +
> 
> [Severity: Medium]
> Is char the correct type here? The value 0x84 exceeds the maximum positive
> value for a signed char, which can trigger compiler warnings on architectures
> where char is signed. Could this be changed to unsigned char instead?

will change

> 
> Also, the optimized uprobe attachment replaces the full 10-byte NOP. Does
> verifying only the first 5 bytes adequately test that the detach correctly
> restored the original instruction stream?

the last 5 bytes is the call instruction that is always different

> 
> >  	/* [uprobes_trampoline] stays after detach */
> >  	ASSERT_OK(find_uprobes_trampoline(tramp), "uprobes_trampoline");
> > -	ASSERT_OK(memcmp(addr, nop5, 5), "nop5");
> > +	ASSERT_OK(memcmp(addr, nop10_prefix, 5), "nop10_prefix");
> >  }
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/usdt.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/usdt.c
> > index 69759b27794d7..fda3a298ccfc7 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/usdt.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/usdt.c
> > @@ -252,7 +252,7 @@ extern void usdt_1(void);
> >  extern void usdt_2(void);
> >  
> >  static unsigned char nop1[1] = { 0x90 };
> > -static unsigned char nop1_nop5_combo[6] = { 0x90, 0x0f, 0x1f, 0x44, 0x00, 0x00 };
> > +static unsigned char nop1_nop10_combo[11] = { 0x90, 0x66, 0x2e, 0x0f, 0x1f, 0x84, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00 };
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/usdt_2.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/usdt_2.c
> > index 789883aaca4c3..b359b389f6c00 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/usdt_2.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/usdt_2.c
> > @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
> >  #if defined(__x86_64__)
> >  
> >  /*
> > - * Include usdt.h with default nop,nop5 instructions combo.
> > + * Include usdt.h with default nop,nop10 instructions combo.
> >   */
> >  #include "usdt.h"
> 
> [Severity: Medium]
> It appears tools/testing/selftests/bpf/usdt.h was not updated in this patch
> to redefine USDT_NOP to 10 bytes for x86_64.
> 
> Since usdt_2.c includes usdt.h to build its probes, won't it still compile
> with the old 6-byte sequence? This would cause find_instr() in usdt.c to fail
> to locate nop1_nop10_combo and result in test failures.

all those changes are in separate cpatches for easier review (as I thought..)
I can squash them if that's what we want

jirka

  reply	other threads:[~2026-05-27  9:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-05-26 20:58 [PATCHv4 00/13] uprobes/x86: Fix red zone issue for optimized uprobes Jiri Olsa
2026-05-26 20:58 ` [PATCHv4 01/13] uprobes/x86: Use proper mm_struct in __in_uprobe_trampoline Jiri Olsa
2026-05-26 20:58 ` [PATCHv4 02/13] uprobes/x86: Remove struct uprobe_trampoline object Jiri Olsa
2026-05-26 21:46   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-05-27  9:58     ` Jiri Olsa
2026-06-01  8:31       ` Jiri Olsa
2026-05-26 20:58 ` [PATCHv4 03/13] uprobes/x86: Allow to copy uprobe trampolines on fork Jiri Olsa
2026-05-26 21:46   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-05-27  9:58     ` Jiri Olsa
2026-05-26 20:58 ` [PATCHv4 04/13] uprobes/x86: Unmap trampoline vma object in case it's unused Jiri Olsa
2026-05-26 21:46   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-05-27  9:57     ` Jiri Olsa
2026-05-26 20:58 ` [PATCHv4 05/13] uprobes/x86: Move optimized uprobe from nop5 to nop10 Jiri Olsa
2026-05-26 20:58 ` [PATCHv4 06/13] libbpf: Change has_nop_combo to work on top of nop10 Jiri Olsa
2026-05-26 21:28   ` sashiko-bot
2026-05-27  9:57     ` Jiri Olsa
2026-05-26 21:46   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-05-27  9:57     ` Jiri Olsa
2026-05-26 20:58 ` [PATCHv4 07/13] libbpf: Detect uprobe syscall with new error Jiri Olsa
2026-05-26 21:36   ` sashiko-bot
2026-05-26 21:46   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-05-26 20:58 ` [PATCHv4 08/13] selftests/bpf: Emit nop,nop10 instructions combo for x86_64 arch Jiri Olsa
2026-05-26 21:19   ` sashiko-bot
2026-05-26 21:46   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-05-26 20:58 ` [PATCHv4 09/13] selftests/bpf: Change uprobe syscall tests to use nop10 Jiri Olsa
2026-05-26 21:15   ` sashiko-bot
2026-05-27  9:58     ` Jiri Olsa [this message]
2026-05-26 21:46   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-05-27  9:58     ` Jiri Olsa
2026-05-27 10:30   ` Jakub Sitnicki
2026-05-26 20:58 ` [PATCHv4 10/13] selftests/bpf: Change uprobe/usdt trigger bench code " Jiri Olsa
2026-05-27 10:46   ` Jakub Sitnicki
2026-05-26 20:58 ` [PATCHv4 11/13] selftests/bpf: Add reattach tests for uprobe syscall Jiri Olsa
2026-05-27 11:32   ` Jakub Sitnicki
2026-05-28 11:10     ` Jiri Olsa
2026-05-26 20:58 ` [PATCHv4 12/13] selftests/bpf: Add tests for uprobe nop10 red zone clobbering Jiri Olsa
2026-05-26 21:46   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-05-27 10:26     ` Jiri Olsa
2026-05-28 12:46   ` Jakub Sitnicki
2026-05-26 20:58 ` [PATCHv4 13/13] selftests/bpf: Add tests for forked/cloned optimized uprobes Jiri Olsa
2026-05-28 13:00   ` Jakub Sitnicki
2026-06-01  8:31     ` Jiri Olsa
2026-06-04  6:59 ` [PATCHv4 00/13] uprobes/x86: Fix red zone issue for " Jiri Olsa

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=ahbAMSyTfWgxrPHl@krava \
    --to=olsajiri@gmail.com \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.