Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/2] Add prog_kfunc feature probe

[Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>]

On Fri, 2025-01-24 at 01:05 +0800, Tao Chen wrote:
> More and more kfunc functions are being added to the kernel.
> Different prog types have different restrictions when using kfunc.
> Therefore, prog_kfunc probe is added to check whether it is supported,
> and the use of this api will be added to bpftool later.
> 
> Change list:
> - v1 -> v2:
>   - check unsupported prog type like probe_bpf_helper
>   - add off parameter for module btf
>   - chenk verifier info when kfunc id invalid
> 
> Revisions:
> - v1
>   https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20250122171359.232791-1-chen.dylane@gmail.com
> 
> Tao Chen (2):
>   libbpf: Add libbpf_probe_bpf_kfunc API
>   selftests/bpf: Add libbpf_probe_bpf_kfunc API selftests
> 
>  tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h                        | 17 ++++++-
>  tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map                      |  1 +
>  tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_probes.c                 | 47 +++++++++++++++++++
>  .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/libbpf_probes.c  | 35 ++++++++++++++
>  4 files changed, 99 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 

Hi Tao,

Looks like something is wrong with the way the patch was generated:
- patchwork link:
  https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20250123170555.291896-2-chen.dylane@gmail.com/
- error message:
  https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/pull/8395

    Cmd('git') failed due to: exit code(128)
      cmdline: git am --3way
      stdout: 'Applying: libbpf: Add libbpf_probe_bpf_kfunc API
    Patch failed at 0001 libbpf: Add libbpf_probe_bpf_kfunc API
    When you have resolved this problem, run "git am --continue".
    If you prefer to skip this patch, run "git am --skip" instead.
    To restore the original branch and stop patching, run "git am --abort".'
      stderr: 'error: corrupt patch at line 103
    error: could not build fake ancestor
    hint: Use 'git am --show-current-patch=diff' to see the failed patch'

I get the same error when trying to apply locally,
could you please double check?

Thanks,
Eduard