Re: [PATCH v3 bpf-next 4/4] selftests/bpf: add tests for u[ret]probe attach by name
From: Andrii Nakryiko <hidden>
Date: 2022-02-04 19:30:30
Also in:
bpf
On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 8:13 AM Alan Maguire [off-list ref] wrote:
add tests that verify attaching by name for 1. local functions in a program 2. library functions in a shared object; and 3. library functions in a program ...succeed for uprobe and uretprobes using new "func_name" option for bpf_program__attach_uprobe_opts(). Also verify auto-attach works where uprobe, path to binary and function name are specified, but fails with -ESRCH when the format does not match (the latter is to support backwards-compatibility). Signed-off-by: Alan Maguire <redacted> --- .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/attach_probe.c | 89 +++++++++++++++++++++- .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_attach_probe.c | 37 +++++++++ 2 files changed, 123 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
[...]
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
if (CHECK(skel->bss->uprobe_res != 3, "check_uprobe_res", "wrong uprobe res: %d\n", skel->bss->uprobe_res)) goto cleanup;@@ -110,7 +179,21 @@ void test_attach_probe(void) "wrong uretprobe res: %d\n", skel->bss->uretprobe_res)) goto cleanup; + if (CHECK(skel->bss->uprobe_byname_res != 5, "check_uprobe_byname_res", + "wrong uprobe byname res: %d\n", skel->bss->uprobe_byname_res)) + goto cleanup; + if (CHECK(skel->bss->uretprobe_byname_res != 6, "check_uretprobe_byname_res", + "wrong uretprobe byname res: %d\n", skel->bss->uretprobe_byname_res)) + goto cleanup; + if (CHECK(skel->bss->uprobe_byname2_res != 7, "check_uprobe_byname2_res", + "wrong uprobe byname2 res: %d\n", skel->bss->uprobe_byname2_res)) + goto cleanup; + if (CHECK(skel->bss->uretprobe_byname2_res != 8, "check_uretprobe_byname2_res", + "wrong uretprobe byname2 res: %d\n", skel->bss->uretprobe_byname2_res)) + goto cleanup; +
Please don't use CHECK()s for new code, only ASSERT_xxx() for new code.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
cleanup: + free(libc_path); test_attach_probe__destroy(skel); ASSERT_EQ(uprobe_ref_ctr, 0, "uprobe_ref_ctr_cleanup"); }diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_attach_probe.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_attach_probe.c index 8056a4c..9942461c 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_attach_probe.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_attach_probe.c@@ -10,6 +10,10 @@ int kretprobe_res = 0; int uprobe_res = 0; int uretprobe_res = 0; +int uprobe_byname_res = 0; +int uretprobe_byname_res = 0; +int uprobe_byname2_res = 0; +int uretprobe_byname2_res = 0; SEC("kprobe/sys_nanosleep") int handle_kprobe(struct pt_regs *ctx)@@ -39,4 +43,37 @@ int handle_uretprobe(struct pt_regs *ctx) return 0; } +SEC("uprobe/trigger_func_byname") +int handle_uprobe_byname(struct pt_regs *ctx) +{ + uprobe_byname_res = 5; + return 0; +} + +/* use auto-attach format for section definition. */ +SEC("uretprobe//proc/self/exe:trigger_func2") +int handle_uretprobe_byname(struct pt_regs *ctx) +{ + uretprobe_byname_res = 6; + return 0; +} + +SEC("uprobe/trigger_func_byname2") +int handle_uprobe_byname2(struct pt_regs *ctx)
this one is for malloc, so why SEC() doesn't reflect this? It would be great to also have (probably separate) selftest for auto-attach logic of skeleton for uprobes. I'd add a separate uprobe-specific selftests, there is plenty to test without having kprobes intermingled.
+{
+ unsigned int size = PT_REGS_PARM1(ctx);
+
+ /* verify malloc size */
+ if (size == 1)
+ uprobe_byname2_res = 7;
+ return 0;
+}
+
+SEC("uretprobe/trigger_func_byname2")
+int handle_uretprobe_byname2(struct pt_regs *ctx)
+{
+ uretprobe_byname2_res = 8;
+ return 0;
+}
+
char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
--
1.8.3.1