Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider: - [Low] The test comment `# BAD_ACCESS_ADDR` does not match the actual error logged by the kernel, which is `BAD_PROBE_ADDR`. --
--- Patch [8]: [PATCH v13 08/12] selftests: tracing: Add syntax testcase for wprobe --- commit fc72e33e91d484bd38ebdde9110dabef02740205 Author: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <[email protected]> selftests: tracing: Add syntax testcase for wprobe This commit adds a new testcase, wprobe_syntax_errors.tc, to verify the syntax error handling of watch probe events. > diff --git > a/tools/testing/selftests/ftrace/test.d/dynevent/wprobes_syntax_errors.tc > b/tools/testing/selftests/ftrace/test.d/dynevent/wprobes_syntax_errors.tc > new file mode 100644 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/ftrace/test.d/dynevent/wprobes_syntax_errors.tc [ ... ] > +check_error '^w' # NO_ARG_BODY > +check_error 'w^10 w@jiffies' # WPROBE_NO_MAXACT > +check_error 'w ^symbol' # BAD_ACCESS_FMT > +check_error 'w ^a@symbol' # BAD_ACCESS_TYPE > +check_error 'w w@^symbol' # BAD_ACCESS_ADDR > +check_error 'w w@jiffies^+offset' # BAD_ACCESS_ADDR [Severity: Low] This isn't a bug, but should this comment say BAD_PROBE_ADDR instead of BAD_ACCESS_ADDR? Looking at parse_address_spec() in kernel/trace/trace_wprobe.c, when the offset fails to parse, it logs BAD_PROBE_ADDR rather than BAD_ACCESS_ADDR: if (kstrtoint(off_str, 0, &offset) != 0) { trace_probe_log_err(off_str - _spec, BAD_PROBE_ADDR); return -EINVAL; } Could the comment in the test script be updated to match the actual error constant logged by the kernel? -- Sashiko AI review ยท https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/178739053919.1520941.17662338993878200834.stgit@devnote2?part=8
