kernel/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_bpf_cookie.c, branch linux-6.2.y

selftests/bpf: Clean up sys_nanosleep uses

2022-08-08T13:42:00Z

This patch cleans up a few things: * dynptr_fail.c: There is no sys_nanosleep tracepoint. dynptr_fail only tests that the prog load fails, so just SEC("?raw_tp") suffices here. * test_bpf_cookie: There is no sys_nanosleep kprobe. The prog is loaded in userspace through bpf_program__attach_kprobe_opts passing in SYS_NANOSLEEP_KPROBE_NAME, so just SEC("k{ret}probe") suffices here. * test_helper_restricted: There is no sys_nanosleep kprobe. test_helper_restricted only tests that the prog load fails, so just SEC("?kprobe")( suffices here. There are no functional changes. Suggested-by: Andrii Nakryiko Signed-off-by: Joanne Koong Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Yonghong Song Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220805171405.2272103-1-joannelkoong@gmail.com

selftest/bpf: The test cases of BPF cookie for fentry/fexit/fmod_ret/lsm.

2022-05-11T04:58:40Z

Make sure BPF cookies are correct for fentry/fexit/fmod_ret/lsm. Signed-off-by: Kui-Feng Lee Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220510205923.3206889-6-kuifeng@fb.com

libbpf: Add auto-attach for uprobes based on section name

2022-04-04T02:55:57Z

Now that u[ret]probes can use name-based specification, it makes sense to add support for auto-attach based on SEC() definition. The format proposed is SEC("u[ret]probe/binary:[raw_offset|[function_name[+offset]]") For example, to trace malloc() in libc: SEC("uprobe/libc.so.6:malloc") ...or to trace function foo2 in /usr/bin/foo: SEC("uprobe//usr/bin/foo:foo2") Auto-attach is done for all tasks (pid -1). prog can be an absolute path or simply a program/library name; in the latter case, we use PATH/LD_LIBRARY_PATH to resolve the full path, falling back to standard locations (/usr/bin:/usr/sbin or /usr/lib64:/usr/lib) if the file is not found via environment-variable specified locations. Signed-off-by: Alan Maguire Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/1648654000-21758-4-git-send-email-alan.maguire@oracle.com

selftests/bpf: Add bpf_cookie selftests for high-level APIs

2021-08-16T22:45:08Z

Add selftest with few subtests testing proper bpf_cookie usage. Kprobe and uprobe subtests are pretty straightforward and just validate that the same BPF program attached with different bpf_cookie will be triggered with those different bpf_cookie values. Tracepoint subtest is a bit more interesting, as it is the only perf_event-based BPF hook that shares bpf_prog_array between multiple perf_events internally. This means that the same BPF program can't be attached to the same tracepoint multiple times. So we have 3 identical copies. This arrangement allows to test bpf_prog_array_copy()'s handling of bpf_prog_array list manipulation logic when programs are attached and detached. The test validates that bpf_cookie isn't mixed up and isn't lost during such list manipulations. Perf_event subtest validates that two BPF links can be created against the same perf_event (but not at the same time, only one BPF program can be attached to perf_event itself), and that for each we can specify different bpf_cookie value. Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210815070609.987780-15-andrii@kernel.org