Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-208207-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
From: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 15:04:25 +0200
To: Daniel Xu <dxu@dxuuu.xyz>
Cc: shuah@kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, andrii@kernel.org, eddyz87@gmail.com,
	daniel@iogearbox.net, olsajiri@gmail.com, quentin@isovalent.com,
	alan.maguire@oracle.com, acme@kernel.org, mykolal@fb.com,
	martin.lau@linux.dev, song@kernel.org, yonghong.song@linux.dev,
	john.fastabend@gmail.com, kpsingh@kernel.org, sdf@google.com,
	haoluo@google.com, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 06/12] bpf: selftests: Fix
 bpf_session_cookie() kfunc prototype
Message-ID: <Zmb52Qp__CBzbgDh@krava>
References: <cover.1717881178.git.dxu@dxuuu.xyz>
 <34708481d71ea72c23a78a5209e04a76b261a01d.1717881178.git.dxu@dxuuu.xyz>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <34708481d71ea72c23a78a5209e04a76b261a01d.1717881178.git.dxu@dxuuu.xyz>

On Sat, Jun 08, 2024 at 03:16:02PM -0600, Daniel Xu wrote:
> The prototype defined in bpf_kfuncs.h was not in line with how the
> actual kfunc was defined. This causes compilation errors when kfunc
> prototypes are generated from BTF.
> 
> Fix by aligning with actual kfunc definition.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Xu <dxu@dxuuu.xyz>
> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_kfuncs.h                        | 2 +-
>  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/kprobe_multi_session_cookie.c | 2 +-
>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_kfuncs.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_kfuncs.h
> index be91a6919315..3b6675ab4086 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_kfuncs.h
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_kfuncs.h
> @@ -77,5 +77,5 @@ extern int bpf_verify_pkcs7_signature(struct bpf_dynptr *data_ptr,
>  				      struct bpf_key *trusted_keyring) __ksym;
>  
>  extern bool bpf_session_is_return(void) __ksym __weak;
> -extern long *bpf_session_cookie(void) __ksym __weak;
> +extern __u64 *bpf_session_cookie(void) __ksym __weak;

the original intent was to expose long instead of __u64 :-\

could we rather change the bpf_session_cookie function to return long?
should be just return value type change

thanks,
jirka


>  #endif
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/kprobe_multi_session_cookie.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/kprobe_multi_session_cookie.c
> index d49070803e22..0835b5edf685 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/kprobe_multi_session_cookie.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/kprobe_multi_session_cookie.c
> @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ int BPF_PROG(trigger)
>  
>  static int check_cookie(__u64 val, __u64 *result)
>  {
> -	long *cookie;
> +	__u64 *cookie;
>  
>  	if (bpf_get_current_pid_tgid() >> 32 != pid)
>  		return 1;
> -- 
> 2.44.0
>