Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-210301-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Feedback-ID: i6a694271:Fastmail
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 10:58:26 -0600
From: Daniel Xu <dxu@dxuuu.xyz>
To: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com>
Cc: shuah@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org, 
	eddyz87@gmail.com, ast@kernel.org, quentin@isovalent.com, alan.maguire@oracle.com, 
	acme@kernel.org, martin.lau@linux.dev, song@kernel.org, yonghong.song@linux.dev, 
	john.fastabend@gmail.com, kpsingh@kernel.org, sdf@google.com, haoluo@google.com, 
	mykolal@fb.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 03/12] bpf: selftests: Fix fentry test kfunc
 prototypes
Message-ID: <gwrlw7wtc72vz3ky2pltvpoadtjlezv6kdrs6wf3ptsecyu2sh@aexbk4rotm3x>
References: <cover.1717881178.git.dxu@dxuuu.xyz>
 <1f493cb7a7e5349f99e2badf0880b75dd6681898.1717881178.git.dxu@dxuuu.xyz>
 <Zmb_hJQqxi44Nj5B@krava>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Zmb_hJQqxi44Nj5B@krava>

On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 03:28:36PM GMT, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 08, 2024 at 03:15:59PM -0600, Daniel Xu wrote:
> > The prototypes in progs/get_func_ip_test.c were not in line with how the
> > actual kfuncs are defined in net/bpf/test_run.c. This causes compilation
> > errors when kfunc prototypes are generated from BTF.
> > 
> > Fix by aligning with actual kfunc definitions.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Xu <dxu@dxuuu.xyz>
> > ---
> >  .../testing/selftests/bpf/progs/get_func_ip_test.c | 14 +++++++-------
> >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/get_func_ip_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/get_func_ip_test.c
> > index 8956eb78a226..a89596f7585d 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/get_func_ip_test.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/get_func_ip_test.c
> > @@ -5,13 +5,13 @@
> >  
> >  char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
> >  
> > -extern const void bpf_fentry_test1 __ksym;
> > -extern const void bpf_fentry_test2 __ksym;
> > -extern const void bpf_fentry_test3 __ksym;
> > -extern const void bpf_fentry_test4 __ksym;
> > -extern const void bpf_modify_return_test __ksym;
> > -extern const void bpf_fentry_test6 __ksym;
> > -extern const void bpf_fentry_test7 __ksym;
> > +extern int bpf_fentry_test1(int a) __ksym;
> 
> hum, the only registered one as kfunc is bpf_fentry_test1, to allow fmodret
> also there's bpf_fentry_test9 as kfunc, which AFAICS is not really needed

I think bpf_modify_return_test() is also registered. But otherwise yeah,
I think I was overaggressive here. Are you thinking something like this?


diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/get_func_ip_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/get_func_ip_test.c
index a89596f7585d..2011cacdeb18 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/get_func_ip_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/get_func_ip_test.c
@@ -6,12 +6,11 @@
 char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";

 extern int bpf_fentry_test1(int a) __ksym;
-extern int bpf_fentry_test2(int a, __u64 b) __ksym;
-extern int bpf_fentry_test3(char a, int b, __u64 c) __ksym;
-extern int bpf_fentry_test4(void *a, char b, int c, __u64 d) __ksym;
 extern int bpf_modify_return_test(int a, int *b) __ksym;
-extern int bpf_fentry_test6(__u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, void *e, __u64 f) __ksym;
-extern int bpf_fentry_test7(struct bpf_fentry_test_t *arg) __ksym;
+
+extern const void bpf_fentry_test2 __ksym;
+extern const void bpf_fentry_test3 __ksym;
+extern const void bpf_fentry_test4 __ksym;

 extern bool CONFIG_X86_KERNEL_IBT __kconfig __weak;