Re: [PATCHv3 bpf-next 7/7] selftests/bpf: Add test for bpf_get_func_ip in kprobe+offset probe

[Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>]

On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 04:32:25PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 11, 2021 at 7:48 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 05:18:49PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 2:54 PM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Adding test for bpf_get_func_ip in kprobe+ofset probe.
> > >
> > > typo: offset
> > >
> > > > Because of the offset value it's arch specific, adding
> > > > it only for x86_64 architecture.
> > >
> > > I'm not following, you specified +0x5 offset explicitly, why is this
> > > arch-specific?
> >
> > I need some instruction offset != 0 in the traced function,
> > x86_64's fentry jump is 5 bytes, other archs will be different
> 
> Right, ok. I don't see an easy way to detect this offset, but the
> #ifdef __x86_64__ detection doesn't work because we are compiling with
> -target bpf. Please double-check that it actually worked in the first
> place.

ugh, right

> 
> I think a better way would be to have test6 defined unconditionally in
> BPF code, but then disable loading test6 program on anything but
> x86_64 platform at runtime with bpf_program__set_autoload(false).

great, I did not know about this function, will be easier

thanks,
jirka

> 
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
> > > > ---
> > > >  .../testing/selftests/bpf/progs/get_func_ip_test.c  | 13 +++++++++++++
> > > >  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/get_func_ip_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/get_func_ip_test.c
> > > > index 8ca54390d2b1..e8a9428a0ea3 100644
> > > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/get_func_ip_test.c
> > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/get_func_ip_test.c
> > > > @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ extern const void bpf_fentry_test2 __ksym;
> > > >  extern const void bpf_fentry_test3 __ksym;
> > > >  extern const void bpf_fentry_test4 __ksym;
> > > >  extern const void bpf_modify_return_test __ksym;
> > > > +extern const void bpf_fentry_test6 __ksym;
> > > >
> > > >  __u64 test1_result = 0;
> > > >  SEC("fentry/bpf_fentry_test1")
> > > > @@ -60,3 +61,15 @@ int BPF_PROG(fmod_ret_test, int a, int *b, int ret)
> > > >         test5_result = (const void *) addr == &bpf_modify_return_test;
> > > >         return ret;
> > > >  }
> > > > +
> > > > +#ifdef __x86_64__
> > > > +__u64 test6_result = 0;
> > >
> > > see, and you just forgot to update the user-space part of the test to
> > > even check test6_result...
> > >
> > > please group variables together and do explicit ASSERT_EQ
> >
> > right.. will change
> >
> > thanks,
> > jirka
> >
> > >
> > > > +SEC("kprobe/bpf_fentry_test6+0x5")
> > > > +int test6(struct pt_regs *ctx)
> > > > +{
> > > > +       __u64 addr = bpf_get_func_ip(ctx);
> > > > +
> > > > +       test6_result = (const void *) addr == &bpf_fentry_test6 + 5;
> > > > +       return 0;
> > > > +}
> > > > +#endif
> > > > --
> > > > 2.31.1
> > > >
> > >
> >
>