Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests: bpf: Add a new test for bare tracepoints
On 01/13/21 17:40, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 10:21:31AM +, Qais Yousef wrote: > > On 01/12/21 12:07, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > > > > > $ sudo ./test_progs -v -t module_attach > > > > > > > > > > use -vv when debugging stuff like that with test_progs, it will output > > > > > libbpf detailed logs, that often are very helpful > > > > > > > > I tried that but it didn't help me. Full output is here > > > > > > > > https://paste.debian.net/1180846 > > > > > > > > > > It did help a bit for me to make sure that you have bpf_testmod > > > properly loaded and its BTF was found, so the problem is somewhere > > > else. Also, given load succeeded and attach failed with OPNOTSUPP, I > > > suspect you are missing some of FTRACE configs, which seems to be > > > missing from selftests's config as well. Check that you have > > > CONFIG_FTRACE=y and CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE=y, and you might need some > > > more. See [0] for a real config we are using to run all tests in > > > libbpf CI. If you figure out what you were missing, please also > > > contribute a patch to selftests' config. > > > > > > [0] > > > https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf/blob/master/travis-ci/vmtest/configs/latest.config > > > > Yeah that occurred to me too. I do have all necessary FTRACE options > > enabled, > > including DYNAMIC_FTRACE. I think I did try enabling fault injection too > > just > > in case. I have CONFIG_FAULT_INJECTION=y and > > CONFIG_FUNCTION_ERROR_INJECTION=y. > > Could it come from lack of fentry support on arm64 (or are you testing on > x86?) Since the arm64 JIT doesn't have trampoline support at the moment, a > lot of bpf selftests fail with ENOTSUPP. I am on arm64. I honestly have no clue about this. I'll try to dig out. Thanks -- Qais Yousef
Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests: bpf: Add a new test for bare tracepoints
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 10:21:31AM +, Qais Yousef wrote: > On 01/12/21 12:07, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > > > > $ sudo ./test_progs -v -t module_attach > > > > > > > > use -vv when debugging stuff like that with test_progs, it will output > > > > libbpf detailed logs, that often are very helpful > > > > > > I tried that but it didn't help me. Full output is here > > > > > > https://paste.debian.net/1180846 > > > > > > > It did help a bit for me to make sure that you have bpf_testmod > > properly loaded and its BTF was found, so the problem is somewhere > > else. Also, given load succeeded and attach failed with OPNOTSUPP, I > > suspect you are missing some of FTRACE configs, which seems to be > > missing from selftests's config as well. Check that you have > > CONFIG_FTRACE=y and CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE=y, and you might need some > > more. See [0] for a real config we are using to run all tests in > > libbpf CI. If you figure out what you were missing, please also > > contribute a patch to selftests' config. > > > > [0] > > https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf/blob/master/travis-ci/vmtest/configs/latest.config > > Yeah that occurred to me too. I do have all necessary FTRACE options enabled, > including DYNAMIC_FTRACE. I think I did try enabling fault injection too just > in case. I have CONFIG_FAULT_INJECTION=y and > CONFIG_FUNCTION_ERROR_INJECTION=y. Could it come from lack of fentry support on arm64 (or are you testing on x86?) Since the arm64 JIT doesn't have trampoline support at the moment, a lot of bpf selftests fail with ENOTSUPP. Thanks, Jean
Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests: bpf: Add a new test for bare tracepoints
On 01/12/21 12:07, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > > > $ sudo ./test_progs -v -t module_attach > > > > > > use -vv when debugging stuff like that with test_progs, it will output > > > libbpf detailed logs, that often are very helpful > > > > I tried that but it didn't help me. Full output is here > > > > https://paste.debian.net/1180846 > > > > It did help a bit for me to make sure that you have bpf_testmod > properly loaded and its BTF was found, so the problem is somewhere > else. Also, given load succeeded and attach failed with OPNOTSUPP, I > suspect you are missing some of FTRACE configs, which seems to be > missing from selftests's config as well. Check that you have > CONFIG_FTRACE=y and CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE=y, and you might need some > more. See [0] for a real config we are using to run all tests in > libbpf CI. If you figure out what you were missing, please also > contribute a patch to selftests' config. > > [0] > https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf/blob/master/travis-ci/vmtest/configs/latest.config Yeah that occurred to me too. I do have all necessary FTRACE options enabled, including DYNAMIC_FTRACE. I think I did try enabling fault injection too just in case. I have CONFIG_FAULT_INJECTION=y and CONFIG_FUNCTION_ERROR_INJECTION=y. I will look at the CI config and see if I can figure it out. I will likely get a chance to look at all of this and send v2 over the weekend. Thanks -- Qais Yousef
Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests: bpf: Add a new test for bare tracepoints
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 11:27 AM Qais Yousef wrote: > > On 01/11/21 23:26, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:20 AM Qais Yousef wrote: > > > > > > Reuse module_attach infrastructure to add a new bare tracepoint to check > > > we can attach to it as a raw tracepoint. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Qais Yousef > > > --- > > > > > > Andrii > > > > > > I was getting the error below when I was trying to run the test. > > > I had to comment out all related fentry* code to be able to test the > > > raw_tp > > > stuff. Not sure something I've done wrong or it's broken for some reason. > > > I was on v5.11-rc2. > > > > Check that you have all the required Kconfig options from > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/config. And also you will need to build > > Yep I have merged this config snippet using merge_config.sh script. > > > pahole from master, 1.19 doesn't have some fixes that add kernel > > module support. I think pahole is the reasons why you have the failure > > below. > > I am using pahole 1.19. I have built it from tip of master though. > > /trying using v1.19 tag > > Still fails the same. > > > > > > > > > $ sudo ./test_progs -v -t module_attach > > > > use -vv when debugging stuff like that with test_progs, it will output > > libbpf detailed logs, that often are very helpful > > I tried that but it didn't help me. Full output is here > > https://paste.debian.net/1180846 > It did help a bit for me to make sure that you have bpf_testmod properly loaded and its BTF was found, so the problem is somewhere else. Also, given load succeeded and attach failed with OPNOTSUPP, I suspect you are missing some of FTRACE configs, which seems to be missing from selftests's config as well. Check that you have CONFIG_FTRACE=y and CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE=y, and you might need some more. See [0] for a real config we are using to run all tests in libbpf CI. If you figure out what you were missing, please also contribute a patch to selftests' config. [0] https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf/blob/master/travis-ci/vmtest/configs/latest.config > > > > > bpf_testmod.ko is already unloaded. > > > Loading bpf_testmod.ko... > > > Successfully loaded bpf_testmod.ko. > > > test_module_attach:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec > > > test_module_attach:PASS:set_attach_target 0 nsec > > > test_module_attach:PASS:skel_load 0 nsec > > > libbpf: prog 'handle_fentry': failed to attach: ERROR: > > > strerror_r(-524)=22 > > > libbpf: failed to auto-attach program 'handle_fentry': -524 > > > test_module_attach:FAIL:skel_attach skeleton attach failed: -524 > > > #58 module_attach:FAIL > > > Successfully unloaded bpf_testmod.ko. > > > Summary: 0/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 1 FAILED > > > > > > > But even apart from test failure, there seems to be kernel build > > failure. See [0] for what fails in kernel-patches CI. > > > >[0] https://travis-ci.com/github/kernel-patches/bpf/builds/212730017 > > Sorry about that. I did a last minute change because of checkpatch.pl error > and > it seems I either forgot to rebuild or missed that the rebuild failed :/ > no worries, just fix and re-submit. Good that we have CI that caught this early on. > > > > > > > > > > .../selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod-events.h | 6 ++ > > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c | 2 ++ > > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/module_attach.c | 1 + > > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_module_attach.c | 10 ++ > > > 4 files changed, 19 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod-events.h > > > b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod-events.h > > > index b83ea448bc79..e1ada753f10c 100644 > > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod-events.h > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod-events.h > > > @@ -28,6 +28,12 @@ TRACE_EVENT(bpf_testmod_test_read, > > > __entry->pid, __entry->comm, __entry->off, __entry->len) > > > ); > > > > > > +/* A bare tracepoint with no event associated with it */ > > > +DECLARE_TRACE(bpf_testmod_test_read_bare, > > > + TP_PROTO(struct task_struct *task, struct > > > bpf_testmod_test_read_ctx *ctx), > > > + TP_ARGS(task, ctx) > > > +); > > > + > > > #endif /* _BPF_TESTMOD_EVENTS_H */ > > > > > > #undef TRACE_INCLUDE_PATH > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c > > > b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c > > > index 2df19d73ca49..d63cebdaca44 100644 > > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c > > > @@ -22,6 +22,8 @@ bpf_testmod_test_read(struct file *file, struct kobject > > > *kobj, > > > }; > > > > > > trace_bpf_testmod_test_read(current, ); > > > + ctx.len++; > > > +
Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests: bpf: Add a new test for bare tracepoints
On 01/11/21 23:26, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:20 AM Qais Yousef wrote: > > > > Reuse module_attach infrastructure to add a new bare tracepoint to check > > we can attach to it as a raw tracepoint. > > > > Signed-off-by: Qais Yousef > > --- > > > > Andrii > > > > I was getting the error below when I was trying to run the test. > > I had to comment out all related fentry* code to be able to test the raw_tp > > stuff. Not sure something I've done wrong or it's broken for some reason. > > I was on v5.11-rc2. > > Check that you have all the required Kconfig options from > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/config. And also you will need to build Yep I have merged this config snippet using merge_config.sh script. > pahole from master, 1.19 doesn't have some fixes that add kernel > module support. I think pahole is the reasons why you have the failure > below. I am using pahole 1.19. I have built it from tip of master though. /trying using v1.19 tag Still fails the same. > > > > > $ sudo ./test_progs -v -t module_attach > > use -vv when debugging stuff like that with test_progs, it will output > libbpf detailed logs, that often are very helpful I tried that but it didn't help me. Full output is here https://paste.debian.net/1180846 > > > bpf_testmod.ko is already unloaded. > > Loading bpf_testmod.ko... > > Successfully loaded bpf_testmod.ko. > > test_module_attach:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec > > test_module_attach:PASS:set_attach_target 0 nsec > > test_module_attach:PASS:skel_load 0 nsec > > libbpf: prog 'handle_fentry': failed to attach: ERROR: > > strerror_r(-524)=22 > > libbpf: failed to auto-attach program 'handle_fentry': -524 > > test_module_attach:FAIL:skel_attach skeleton attach failed: -524 > > #58 module_attach:FAIL > > Successfully unloaded bpf_testmod.ko. > > Summary: 0/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 1 FAILED > > > > But even apart from test failure, there seems to be kernel build > failure. See [0] for what fails in kernel-patches CI. > >[0] https://travis-ci.com/github/kernel-patches/bpf/builds/212730017 Sorry about that. I did a last minute change because of checkpatch.pl error and it seems I either forgot to rebuild or missed that the rebuild failed :/ > > > > > > .../selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod-events.h | 6 ++ > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c | 2 ++ > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/module_attach.c | 1 + > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_module_attach.c | 10 ++ > > 4 files changed, 19 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod-events.h > > b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod-events.h > > index b83ea448bc79..e1ada753f10c 100644 > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod-events.h > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod-events.h > > @@ -28,6 +28,12 @@ TRACE_EVENT(bpf_testmod_test_read, > > __entry->pid, __entry->comm, __entry->off, __entry->len) > > ); > > > > +/* A bare tracepoint with no event associated with it */ > > +DECLARE_TRACE(bpf_testmod_test_read_bare, > > + TP_PROTO(struct task_struct *task, struct bpf_testmod_test_read_ctx > > *ctx), > > + TP_ARGS(task, ctx) > > +); > > + > > #endif /* _BPF_TESTMOD_EVENTS_H */ > > > > #undef TRACE_INCLUDE_PATH > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c > > b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c > > index 2df19d73ca49..d63cebdaca44 100644 > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c > > @@ -22,6 +22,8 @@ bpf_testmod_test_read(struct file *file, struct kobject > > *kobj, > > }; > > > > trace_bpf_testmod_test_read(current, ); > > + ctx.len++; > > + trace_bpf_testmod_test_read_bare(current, ); > > It's kind of boring to have two read tracepoints :) Do you mind adding Hehe boring is good :p > a write tracepoint and use bare tracepoint there? You won't need this > ctx.len++ hack as well. Feel free to add identical > bpf_testmod_test_write_ctx (renaming it is more of a pain). It was easy to get this done. So I think it should be easy to make it a write too :) Thanks -- Qais Yousef > > > > > return -EIO; /* always fail */ > > } > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/module_attach.c > > b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/module_attach.c > > index 50796b651f72..7085a118f38c 100644 > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/module_attach.c > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/module_attach.c > > @@ -50,6 +50,7 @@ void test_module_attach(void) > > ASSERT_OK(trigger_module_test_read(READ_SZ), "trigger_read"); > > > > ASSERT_EQ(bss->raw_tp_read_sz, READ_SZ, "raw_tp"); > > +
Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests: bpf: Add a new test for bare tracepoints
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:20 AM Qais Yousef wrote:
>
> Reuse module_attach infrastructure to add a new bare tracepoint to check
> we can attach to it as a raw tracepoint.
>
> Signed-off-by: Qais Yousef
> ---
>
> Andrii
>
> I was getting the error below when I was trying to run the test.
> I had to comment out all related fentry* code to be able to test the raw_tp
> stuff. Not sure something I've done wrong or it's broken for some reason.
> I was on v5.11-rc2.
Check that you have all the required Kconfig options from
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/config. And also you will need to build
pahole from master, 1.19 doesn't have some fixes that add kernel
module support. I think pahole is the reasons why you have the failure
below.
>
> $ sudo ./test_progs -v -t module_attach
use -vv when debugging stuff like that with test_progs, it will output
libbpf detailed logs, that often are very helpful
> bpf_testmod.ko is already unloaded.
> Loading bpf_testmod.ko...
> Successfully loaded bpf_testmod.ko.
> test_module_attach:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
> test_module_attach:PASS:set_attach_target 0 nsec
> test_module_attach:PASS:skel_load 0 nsec
> libbpf: prog 'handle_fentry': failed to attach: ERROR:
> strerror_r(-524)=22
> libbpf: failed to auto-attach program 'handle_fentry': -524
> test_module_attach:FAIL:skel_attach skeleton attach failed: -524
> #58 module_attach:FAIL
> Successfully unloaded bpf_testmod.ko.
> Summary: 0/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 1 FAILED
>
But even apart from test failure, there seems to be kernel build
failure. See [0] for what fails in kernel-patches CI.
[0] https://travis-ci.com/github/kernel-patches/bpf/builds/212730017
>
> .../selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod-events.h | 6 ++
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c | 2 ++
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/module_attach.c | 1 +
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_module_attach.c | 10 ++
> 4 files changed, 19 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod-events.h
> b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod-events.h
> index b83ea448bc79..e1ada753f10c 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod-events.h
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod-events.h
> @@ -28,6 +28,12 @@ TRACE_EVENT(bpf_testmod_test_read,
> __entry->pid, __entry->comm, __entry->off, __entry->len)
> );
>
> +/* A bare tracepoint with no event associated with it */
> +DECLARE_TRACE(bpf_testmod_test_read_bare,
> + TP_PROTO(struct task_struct *task, struct bpf_testmod_test_read_ctx
> *ctx),
> + TP_ARGS(task, ctx)
> +);
> +
> #endif /* _BPF_TESTMOD_EVENTS_H */
>
> #undef TRACE_INCLUDE_PATH
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
> b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
> index 2df19d73ca49..d63cebdaca44 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
> @@ -22,6 +22,8 @@ bpf_testmod_test_read(struct file *file, struct kobject
> *kobj,
> };
>
> trace_bpf_testmod_test_read(current, );
> + ctx.len++;
> + trace_bpf_testmod_test_read_bare(current, );
It's kind of boring to have two read tracepoints :) Do you mind adding
a write tracepoint and use bare tracepoint there? You won't need this
ctx.len++ hack as well. Feel free to add identical
bpf_testmod_test_write_ctx (renaming it is more of a pain).
>
> return -EIO; /* always fail */
> }
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/module_attach.c
> b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/module_attach.c
> index 50796b651f72..7085a118f38c 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/module_attach.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/module_attach.c
> @@ -50,6 +50,7 @@ void test_module_attach(void)
> ASSERT_OK(trigger_module_test_read(READ_SZ), "trigger_read");
>
> ASSERT_EQ(bss->raw_tp_read_sz, READ_SZ, "raw_tp");
> + ASSERT_EQ(bss->raw_tp_bare_read_sz, READ_SZ+1, "raw_tp_bare");
> ASSERT_EQ(bss->tp_btf_read_sz, READ_SZ, "tp_btf");
> ASSERT_EQ(bss->fentry_read_sz, READ_SZ, "fentry");
> ASSERT_EQ(bss->fentry_manual_read_sz, READ_SZ, "fentry_manual");
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_module_attach.c
> b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_module_attach.c
> index efd1e287ac17..08aa157afa1d 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_module_attach.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_module_attach.c
> @@ -17,6 +17,16 @@ int BPF_PROG(handle_raw_tp,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +__u32 raw_tp_bare_read_sz = 0;
> +
> +SEC("raw_tp/bpf_testmod_test_read_bare")
> +int BPF_PROG(handle_raw_tp_bare,
> +struct task_struct *task, struct bpf_testmod_test_read_ctx
>
[PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests: bpf: Add a new test for bare tracepoints
Reuse module_attach infrastructure to add a new bare tracepoint to check
we can attach to it as a raw tracepoint.
Signed-off-by: Qais Yousef
---
Andrii
I was getting the error below when I was trying to run the test.
I had to comment out all related fentry* code to be able to test the raw_tp
stuff. Not sure something I've done wrong or it's broken for some reason.
I was on v5.11-rc2.
$ sudo ./test_progs -v -t module_attach
bpf_testmod.ko is already unloaded.
Loading bpf_testmod.ko...
Successfully loaded bpf_testmod.ko.
test_module_attach:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
test_module_attach:PASS:set_attach_target 0 nsec
test_module_attach:PASS:skel_load 0 nsec
libbpf: prog 'handle_fentry': failed to attach: ERROR:
strerror_r(-524)=22
libbpf: failed to auto-attach program 'handle_fentry': -524
test_module_attach:FAIL:skel_attach skeleton attach failed: -524
#58 module_attach:FAIL
Successfully unloaded bpf_testmod.ko.
Summary: 0/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 1 FAILED
.../selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod-events.h | 6 ++
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c | 2 ++
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/module_attach.c | 1 +
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_module_attach.c | 10 ++
4 files changed, 19 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod-events.h
b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod-events.h
index b83ea448bc79..e1ada753f10c 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod-events.h
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod-events.h
@@ -28,6 +28,12 @@ TRACE_EVENT(bpf_testmod_test_read,
__entry->pid, __entry->comm, __entry->off, __entry->len)
);
+/* A bare tracepoint with no event associated with it */
+DECLARE_TRACE(bpf_testmod_test_read_bare,
+ TP_PROTO(struct task_struct *task, struct bpf_testmod_test_read_ctx
*ctx),
+ TP_ARGS(task, ctx)
+);
+
#endif /* _BPF_TESTMOD_EVENTS_H */
#undef TRACE_INCLUDE_PATH
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
index 2df19d73ca49..d63cebdaca44 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
@@ -22,6 +22,8 @@ bpf_testmod_test_read(struct file *file, struct kobject *kobj,
};
trace_bpf_testmod_test_read(current, );
+ ctx.len++;
+ trace_bpf_testmod_test_read_bare(current, );
return -EIO; /* always fail */
}
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/module_attach.c
b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/module_attach.c
index 50796b651f72..7085a118f38c 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/module_attach.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/module_attach.c
@@ -50,6 +50,7 @@ void test_module_attach(void)
ASSERT_OK(trigger_module_test_read(READ_SZ), "trigger_read");
ASSERT_EQ(bss->raw_tp_read_sz, READ_SZ, "raw_tp");
+ ASSERT_EQ(bss->raw_tp_bare_read_sz, READ_SZ+1, "raw_tp_bare");
ASSERT_EQ(bss->tp_btf_read_sz, READ_SZ, "tp_btf");
ASSERT_EQ(bss->fentry_read_sz, READ_SZ, "fentry");
ASSERT_EQ(bss->fentry_manual_read_sz, READ_SZ, "fentry_manual");
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_module_attach.c
b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_module_attach.c
index efd1e287ac17..08aa157afa1d 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_module_attach.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_module_attach.c
@@ -17,6 +17,16 @@ int BPF_PROG(handle_raw_tp,
return 0;
}
+__u32 raw_tp_bare_read_sz = 0;
+
+SEC("raw_tp/bpf_testmod_test_read_bare")
+int BPF_PROG(handle_raw_tp_bare,
+struct task_struct *task, struct bpf_testmod_test_read_ctx
*read_ctx)
+{
+ raw_tp_bare_read_sz = BPF_CORE_READ(read_ctx, len);
+ return 0;
+}
+
__u32 tp_btf_read_sz = 0;
SEC("tp_btf/bpf_testmod_test_read")
--
2.25.1
