From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wm1-f47.google.com (mail-wm1-f47.google.com [209.85.128.47]) (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 E2E773B0AF8 for ; Thu, 28 May 2026 11:10:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.128.47 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1779966652; cv=none; b=LGWpQ1FIxXTJl/T7XjTj1Qg6RHaGgtSThUGi58bmpOwCdK3dUyQgvbgeju8xvd8MaSvmj/0O35XmjdrqKyqADsqbj9yE8qf/RcoBzOqhQ9R4izPaNIEGzctJA8mcweFOvdd9MgCNHY8yWp/UY67+N0eZv1kkHw2q5IWVxj7FvVc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1779966652; c=relaxed/simple; bh=/KwnVJ2dbFKGYx9yHvg5KoYWWC4aW2SQGlKiGmzLvYU=; h=From:Date:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Qlze/JitPZ4jNTJxcrxllBKMORvkwehtAVvqR7OAdSvn/b8GGhOu7lada3MEeq7LnJEpW2dh9WLs2qIueWxTTQWnQJpW5IK+YecVia9ZElQ6fu6pOcu3ELl/L9hDrGPpanLQ9xybD95DBeW4CR8bIWldGnnRAFT5TOOseV5VCM0= 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=R5htYmZ6; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.128.47 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="R5htYmZ6" Received: by mail-wm1-f47.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-49041fb8c23so50269915e9.0 for ; Thu, 28 May 2026 04:10:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20251104; t=1779966649; x=1780571449; 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=dsYRPtt8V39CegAnVfUYJmqEAedS3Hwf+vTU6He99LA=; b=R5htYmZ6/ZWqlbYEDIgtBbk92Q5VKySdQYzMZjXZcgpMpzuPTpUvFpV6Gkg8krrtKI 7Rl2QLEo3T9P8g1gS88FowyZuW6HN+HO0Qrks+GQEcTkFkGrcdf/1YCStk0+PYHg1QFx doC42Ubpaa0zs4wMNO9YEDeOK5SZsfdbtv8cPmz6AcJwB+gjjv3IQ2YoYXAZbQjGb4J2 1CwJm6NS0dUv2pXIkFUvX6U8L+pFHEgnrRGslQqBvFwz5W/pqp/ZdLnOxzGpBvuEjDrG A0+IyPYdW8ODEobQc1pRiNaKI0aisGyt2Atk1GArWFvyE86VDEaI83d6IkvIYGwPw+W4 c6kA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1779966649; x=1780571449; 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=dsYRPtt8V39CegAnVfUYJmqEAedS3Hwf+vTU6He99LA=; b=GCCoH7ReI0igDV9H6hJt2VAnqs11olf704lMFATwW+XUTxzBarqnOHSJlW9dfsyZbC gUYEPk5xwyVEgjA3VLSIwbY1P/6EWtUgQzLNhfED0zzI6c2CJpfhaWYnu6s6QZsqi5b7 qGncY5k8RIU5uhjiBJCWBKHJxOqaD5UsRrNi0T+Fs6C3GdknZxXaEIupjD8E2eQstPxZ LuXVc/3SXQkh5pclnTF8mC99pY9W23PlccOFZjDRgaDScw4bjvQiSsbkcT9fnQXZusp9 28cqYWz9+Bu7X2H4UmdaK0yTjBizsD05sKrq3q3ISOpTmUw8ojzLKglfxfKIopYEY4ec 5qrg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AFNElJ8FVMnpHVqXuCD3RWiaq5e8Y2o7vvcwHpsYSy6jSFBVJUD0J7vLRspQ3uS0yVtNlMlAOWWzRmnvpn6AYbc+8miMynY=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwK19g1sLRg2eaAd6JaAyDXzwGA8lv38ePFqlFENE9MM+QvKtVJ tzJFSJJ40vNlFDHuE85du3agTmPXKir1KbZEaDoOMvQcCKzWI6VuWEur X-Gm-Gg: Acq92OGk/pneIt034L3nlMziHCpVY67rygM+epUz2vW+yw/+CkNeGRa5+aXiHVuMMEl Zkm7crpRRoRuo8MYaveUC4D8H8FJ0L2f4pOGSRFj+JM3jSYerYiM/Nz+yvvE/Leszue3qfhEGn3 6aj3ZNaDxGcCcvtT5HXrwjWV5ZwI+rxr9oYus55w649nibz+Ir4qu1icMRAj539g071w9b/7jjw F+Luf8qrDPyzBULY8A4u7ku5FvXPbmEZRiFNs488mLOCLoDPWlk12HvfeqyWln69tx28KAYmWmt U5LiANfYHRfCjOMoGuwPU1i2gxy5XBQ8GSePXY7W/s3ha2BJSzVXHfgSS87e34I40qVmIYpAwxN GcUziR77SCE2PWpMs6yfbSvAHlTsB9SDKmF8+Nfy9W/OVjL7nqE6p9t2NPpNxu4m0KQHV2GY9jT 5Q+QZkTXWu6358Aa1XYiE9SZaLzA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:4688:b0:48f:e230:80a3 with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-49042ae99afmr436971075e9.33.1779966649100; Thu, 28 May 2026 04:10:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from krava ([2a02:8308:a00c:e200:b655:ff13:e355:16a3]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ffacd0b85a97d-45edb5b314dsm11971146f8f.30.2026.05.28.04.10.48 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 28 May 2026 04:10:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Jiri Olsa X-Google-Original-From: Jiri Olsa Date: Thu, 28 May 2026 13:10:46 +0200 To: Jakub Sitnicki Cc: Oleg Nesterov , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Masami Hiramatsu , Andrii Nakryiko , bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 11/13] selftests/bpf: Add reattach tests for uprobe syscall Message-ID: References: <20260526205840.173790-1-jolsa@kernel.org> <20260526205840.173790-12-jolsa@kernel.org> <87tsrt5bq7.fsf@cloudflare.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-trace-kernel@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: <87tsrt5bq7.fsf@cloudflare.com> On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 01:32:48PM +0200, Jakub Sitnicki wrote: > On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 10:58 PM +02, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > Adding reattach tests for uprobe syscall tests to make sure > > we can re-attach and optimize same uprobe multiple times. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa > > --- > > .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c | 114 ++++++++++++++++-- > > 1 file changed, 104 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c > > index 0868fb9793e0..969f4deba9fd 100644 > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c > > @@ -430,23 +430,28 @@ static void *check_attach(struct uprobe_syscall_executed *skel, trigger_t trigge > > return tramp; > > } > > > > -static void check_detach(void *addr, void *tramp) > > +static bool check_detach(void *addr, void *tramp) > > { > > static const char nop10_prefix[] = { 0x66, 0x2e, 0x0f, 0x1f, 0x84 }; > > + bool ok = true; > > > > /* [uprobes_trampoline] stays after detach */ > > - ASSERT_OK(find_uprobes_trampoline(tramp), "uprobes_trampoline"); > > - ASSERT_OK(memcmp(addr, nop10_prefix, 5), "nop10_prefix"); > > + if (!ASSERT_OK(find_uprobes_trampoline(tramp), "uprobes_trampoline")) > > + ok = false; > > + if (!ASSERT_OK(memcmp(addr, nop10_prefix, 5), "nop10_prefix")) > > + ok = false; > > + return ok; > > } > > Nit: Maybe apply the same pattern you used in > progs/get_func_args_test.c? > > ok &= ASSERT_OK(...) > ok &= ASSERT_OK(...) ok, safes space ;-) > > > > > -static void check(struct uprobe_syscall_executed *skel, struct bpf_link *link, > > - trigger_t trigger, void *addr, int executed) > > +static void *check(struct uprobe_syscall_executed *skel, struct bpf_link *link, > > + trigger_t trigger, void *addr, int executed) > > Nit: Kinda wish that was called check_attach_detach(). would need to check the existing code.. let's keep it > > > { > > void *tramp; > > > > tramp = check_attach(skel, trigger, addr, executed); > > bpf_link__destroy(link); > > check_detach(addr, tramp); > > + return tramp; > > } > > > > static void test_uprobe_legacy(void) > > @@ -457,6 +462,7 @@ static void test_uprobe_legacy(void) > > ); > > struct bpf_link *link; > > unsigned long offset; > > + void *tramp; > > > > offset = get_uprobe_offset(&uprobe_test); > > if (!ASSERT_GE(offset, 0, "get_uprobe_offset")) > > @@ -474,7 +480,28 @@ static void test_uprobe_legacy(void) > > if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(link, "bpf_program__attach_uprobe_opts")) > > goto cleanup; > > > > - check(skel, link, uprobe_test, uprobe_test, 2); > > + tramp = check(skel, link, uprobe_test, uprobe_test, 2); > > + > > + /* reattach and detach without triggering optimization */ > > + link = bpf_program__attach_uprobe_opts(skel->progs.test_uprobe, > > + 0, "/proc/self/exe", offset, NULL); > > + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(link, "bpf_program__attach_uprobe_opts")) > > + goto cleanup; > > + > > In theory we're missing a check here that an unoptimized uprobe was > installed. If nothing happened at all between the last check() and > check_destroy() below, the test would still pass. > > Applies to the three similar changes after that one as well. right, we can add extra check that there's int3 in here (and below) thanks, jirka