Re: [PATCH 5.10.y 0/4] Backport fix commit for kprobe_non_uniq_symbol.tc test failure

[Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>]

On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 01:30:28PM +0200, Francis Laniel wrote:
>Hi!
>
>Le jeudi 10 octobre 2024, 18:11:51 CEST Sherry Yang a écrit :
>> > On Oct 9, 2024, at 6:36 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Tue, Oct 08, 2024 at 03:29:44PM -0700, Sherry Yang wrote:
>> >
>> >> 5.10.y backported the commit
>> >> 09bcf9254838 ("selftests/ftrace: Add new test case which checks non
>> >> unique symbol")
> which added a new test case to check non-unique symbol.
>> >> However, 5.10.y didn't backport the kernel commit
>> >> b022f0c7e404 ("tracing/kprobes: Return EADDRNOTAVAIL when func matches
>> >> several symbols")to support the functionality from kernel side. Backport
>> >> it in this patch series.
>
>> >> The first two patches are presiquisites. The 4th commit is a fix commit
>> >> for the 3rd one.
>> >
>> >
>> > Should we just revert the selftest test instead?  That seems simpler
>> > instead of adding a new feature to this old and obsolete kernel tree,
>> > right?
>>
>>
>> Sorry about the confusion. If kprobe attaches a function which is not the
>> user wants to attach to, I would say it’s a bug. The test case uncovers the
>> bug, so it’s a fix.
>
>> Sherry
>>
>>
>
>Let me add a bit of context as I wrote the third patch of this set.
>
>It all started with a problem I had when trying to trace symbol names
>corresponding to different functions [1].
>The patch was accepted to upstream and I wanted to backport it to stables.
>Sadly, the patch itself was relying on other patches which were not present in
>some stable kernels, which leaded to various problems while releasing the new
>stable kernels (once again: sorry about having caused troubles here) [2]...
>
>The current series seems to hold all the patches for the third one to work, so
>I guess we can now have it merged to stable without problems.

Queued up, thanks!

-- 
Thanks,
Sasha