From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wr1-f51.google.com (mail-wr1-f51.google.com [209.85.221.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F86D28C874 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2026 13:24:32 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.221.51 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1781011475; cv=none; b=lABRQcHiWki4CQFpPnwc17Gq3NqzI+FyvkCMQlGF52TGTWOBHVB8KLPooXo7opjQRwf+i6aGcDEzIpLlMnHEryNdOwI40N1gIxSa/ztzpBt6nb+BZQNVec54Hm031zLuR0QVr4Px8WTNv1lhfuw4rU1VvLoqg5dKFq8LEIijuec= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1781011475; c=relaxed/simple; bh=DBTUHWYYtAJHBUm6xFnBNoXeFgf5VXKZ/gLOxM1bD10=; h=From:Date:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=a3HUGOiDfHTkKYv9gWV+dguJENsv88X1iocF0PxDiPNJLOKBX7F4ZSVZGPCKhCZOQ1PxrTrxFyGsFlhBQEPyR22ohuWhFZIqIu9EkP6gra8TjliPlDSeAqemWPnC7HmXj8gfYNW6Z7t+ILMIpedWUGaXVf3JEa+ECpiJn5DKhks= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=QO5tu8mf; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.221.51 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="QO5tu8mf" Received: by mail-wr1-f51.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-45eedc94d37so2800369f8f.3 for ; Tue, 09 Jun 2026 06:24:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20251104; t=1781011470; x=1781616270; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:date:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=RtgZ2moWRCMeSXG0w3yTlyIp2nfaemvwN7OoUhkz6vU=; b=QO5tu8mfVZyLDCglPD8A8jyYAs5ERhnXw17RldOAAuVXvqeXkhbBF3b/HJJfYWEme0 NlJ0+0P6J3Zg72AueKzdfU4Sj8u3FcjY3BHt2JeEfnwAMIBIER/N+Rb+rv8AWUMapKHc q+oPjZiG1gwJQLWyZe/K4HnxovSJQXbHYnr2dXvzfVwsTJgsT29mod3sm3/CRAbJuTb2 84ag/OyiysrJ0j3QYrsJPPGJ1EmGXRjbjVxmbX2kkuoP4BzcB/3mapJxf3sqIYIDq7m4 zyLgE2/0ooGbOup0y1Rn7vXj6oX83CudpqLQBBGEUBrAQacL8m4JHOX0wSms0GBIF0jh u9Fw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1781011470; x=1781616270; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:date:from:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=RtgZ2moWRCMeSXG0w3yTlyIp2nfaemvwN7OoUhkz6vU=; b=FPWbymUp12kBJiT6OlW7hIUO/FZXzCseiVWxeRcTZr23yDskUW0OCMoXmJbFFXcVM8 0TCGau/5V2QjbTcHo5NTjOv2qEW4apP63JsgO1X7umkD/AYco0Pv244ESgKy3cHprock 6nkF2pK6wkpJn5GSVMHRqQuI7mffjL1uzrZwFAtchdmucdVnFfv0btbk0h8BFLN9JBiO neSj2L1zBuIHC9RgUYOGV90jIbfk3goChVeedy97bRagU6JkZbCu5BLpQolpD+L8Vpgz 8qX+LAL2IjHe1FnsnPWzvWSGITaUVkgVcO60bMXSF7zGca9ZCVOVLDrXA45kg9qj/XKJ pzxA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AFNElJ/h6hm/kQyhzSI4FoXMLV2zhZ77UVTcOxv+P10s7XiJziIW28ew2MM5068As71umihC1QY=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzI2632cPz8vna6iDTXFsW8EDzxKjr2HBHiz7kJtdvi7dKkOkgf gL1/0XFr5LGDT8yqtqvscHLBlE22jlbCe+dFy8iJ00oSbVHUb8zyaiOi X-Gm-Gg: Acq92OGl8nEVLV+4Qucl+3ve6tPQJXMh2qgWdRWreSduZ3k9GttX89qoEvxEepkRhFZ heF0rGFSC4cxOOaqQdnPBKBbmyRy5YKg3g9XmYHrWtJDizBjK77SqVzlhF+3+/3VvPzRAmsMTZb Due67OdKeNomBlOPvzd/nFCGcbbnAiHHvhjeTQKt+z3cRJAQanC12phsMQtH15rzCcDd2QnBVGx qC9GCUYUifwC2u/LubsRsUMeNdbt9cgkG+D5bZ5tFerPuwG9+JjSHN+cYq/osl0sJI4k8ncCmLi 7tylTdV7gnx4qcLMVUe4Dn+d3p8mxm9G6AayVu/J3xvo1oJdyUHGp9UBFjWr8MX10Firham9cMD DOtTTTP6sa6DDhjJgagla/YAM1v9oJ97c6l9yQ2bO2RhjK9r/oA6ITuGzz3EuKZinXkjMfpVf/p QMxzH3uqqo5+cI500G8wIWeUnM4g== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:4022:b0:44a:b931:f32a with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-460566beef3mr4044783f8f.27.1781011470193; Tue, 09 Jun 2026 06:24:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from krava ([2a02:8308:a00c:e200:b655:ff13:e355:16a3]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ffacd0b85a97d-4601f35133csm60043351f8f.25.2026.06.09.06.24.29 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 09 Jun 2026 06:24:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Jiri Olsa X-Google-Original-From: Jiri Olsa Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2026 15:24:27 +0200 To: bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org Cc: ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, martin.lau@linux.dev, eddyz87@gmail.com, songliubraving@fb.com, yhs@fb.com, oleg@redhat.com, mhiramat@kernel.org, martin.lau@kernel.org, yonghong.song@linux.dev, clm@meta.com, ihor.solodrai@linux.dev Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/6] bpf: Add support to specify uprobe_multi target via file descriptor Message-ID: References: <20260609104244.588321-3-jolsa@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Tue, Jun 09, 2026 at 11:17:11AM +0000, bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org wrote: > > Allow uprobe_multi link to identify the target binary by an already > > opened file descriptor. > > > > Adding new BPF_F_UPROBE_MULTI_PATH_FD flag and the path_fd field for > > the attr.link_create.uprobe_multi struct. > > > > When the flag is set, we resolve the target from path_fd, without the > > flag, we keep the existing string path behavior. > > > > I don't see a use case for supporting O_PATH file descriptors, because > > we need need to read the binary first to get probes offsets, so I'm > > using the CLASS(fd, f), which fails for O_PATH fds. > > > > Assisted-by: Codex:GPT-5.4 > > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa > > This change also fixes a latent bug in bpf_link_show_fdinfo(), changing > the exact-equality test to a bitwise test: > > else if (link->type == BPF_LINK_TYPE_UPROBE_MULTI) > seq_printf(m, "link_type:\t%s\n", link->flags & BPF_F_UPROBE_MULTI_RETURN ? > "uretprobe_multi" : "uprobe_multi"); > > The original "link->flags == BPF_F_UPROBE_MULTI_RETURN" was harmless > while BPF_F_UPROBE_MULTI_RETURN was the only defined uprobe_multi flag. > This commit adds a second flag (BPF_F_UPROBE_MULTI_PATH_FD), so the > exact "==" comparison would misreport a uretprobe_multi link as > "uprobe_multi" whenever both flags are set. > > Should this carry a Fixes: tag pointing at the commit that introduced > the fragile comparison? > > Fixes: 803f0700a3bb ("bpf: Show precise link_type for {uprobe,kprobe}_multi fdinfo") hum, I don't think so, it wasn't really a bug until this change jirka > > > --- > 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/27201419867