From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91B63215F55 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2024 12:13:26 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728648807; cv=none; b=S1ydYjWm0XGDvcltDtgdJBlswXmwEp/0MWowaqb21rm+5aztdevTR84Y6yh8en9BcjCL1JdJ5QR3GOYH//N/tGiVikx01Uv7BWel2KsO0T80qixl0OUGRmvhzmLmT/xOJVqqycYgyW+2W3ESVSUyVLyZxweyNkeIqJKvQDLQtVY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728648807; c=relaxed/simple; bh=HCLPY4ySjPKAZgNliDyP37Pk1kRu4x5jEZJh8SnVrUE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=R8rhUiVWA0OgGMdsm9R903X8jE7aI3dhlKkCzp9RqrA5Wa2CbXPVoTRoCGVOhD/bqAJGbunXjv+AU9max6HgS0ue37aw6iiqz99e8atczul9NF3krQQG3UKzXtepuaMaX+9Bu0mGx6pB1I3vmQ9IG8fBGfVp3tlmFGukbclTGPY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=OGWltYYN; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="OGWltYYN" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BB7CAC4CEC3; Fri, 11 Oct 2024 12:13:25 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1728648806; bh=HCLPY4ySjPKAZgNliDyP37Pk1kRu4x5jEZJh8SnVrUE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=OGWltYYNPxSobjiSp7dyWYBh22cjuf9KMKhMr4kYthpnfUnTEDBN/gwwRdHb2GcE1 W3FkG6PgX+musw/cznRUOdGWJukjU+n9q8xjWUOVoetvu+OZMSnCq8US6VF2NygDy4 6o1lxqavRvyDl64N2TERJ/I3IneIrFB0Cs/LNPWy3lw9ZYDJFdmpEyknJDf7IrkJsP VETJNlKXBc/bAk+etxriiJL/LxVJXBVkJdaRgFr7EXyipsSZnJf+2QX7rndG+BFjXO AMtHwmMtqIHC8YNCnVw8AbzDTWJwDqfVa7u0o66vy0VPJkB0RKOSMFCPevluHQb0gn c2Yv+nwHrv6jQ== Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 08:13:24 -0400 From: Sasha Levin To: Francis Laniel Cc: Greg KH , Sherry Yang , linux-stable , "jeyu@kernel.org" , "rostedt@goodmis.org" , "mingo@redhat.com" , "ast@kernel.org" , "jolsa@kernel.org" , "mhiramat@kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.10.y 0/4] Backport fix commit for kprobe_non_uniq_symbol.tc test failure Message-ID: References: <20241008222948.1084461-1-sherry.yang@oracle.com> <2024100909-neatness-kennel-c24d@gregkh> <2204888.irdbgypaU6@pwmachine> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <2204888.irdbgypaU6@pwmachine> 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 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