Revision tags: v6.6.25, v6.6.24, v6.6.23, v6.6.16, v6.6.15, v6.6.14, v6.6.13, v6.6.12, v6.6.11, v6.6.10, v6.6.9, v6.6.8, v6.6.7, v6.6.6, v6.6.5, v6.6.4, v6.6.3, v6.6.2, v6.5.11, v6.6.1, v6.5.10, v6.6, v6.5.9, v6.5.8, v6.5.7, v6.5.6, v6.5.5, v6.5.4, v6.5.3, v6.5.2, v6.1.51, v6.5.1, v6.1.50, v6.5, v6.1.49, v6.1.48, v6.1.46, v6.1.45, v6.1.44, v6.1.43, v6.1.42, v6.1.41, v6.1.40, v6.1.39, v6.1.38, v6.1.37, v6.1.36, v6.4, v6.1.35, v6.1.34, v6.1.33, v6.1.32, v6.1.31, v6.1.30, v6.1.29, v6.1.28, v6.1.27, v6.1.26, v6.3, v6.1.25, v6.1.24, v6.1.23, v6.1.22, v6.1.21, v6.1.20, v6.1.19, v6.1.18, v6.1.17, v6.1.16, v6.1.15, v6.1.14, v6.1.13, v6.2, v6.1.12, v6.1.11, v6.1.10, v6.1.9, v6.1.8, v6.1.7, v6.1.6, v6.1.5, v6.0.19, v6.0.18, v6.1.4, v6.1.3, v6.0.17, v6.1.2, v6.0.16, v6.1.1, v6.0.15, v6.0.14, v6.0.13, v6.1, v6.0.12, v6.0.11, v6.0.10, v5.15.80, v6.0.9, v5.15.79, v6.0.8, v5.15.78, v6.0.7, v5.15.77, v5.15.76, v6.0.6, v6.0.5, v5.15.75, v6.0.4, v6.0.3, v6.0.2, v5.15.74, v5.15.73, v6.0.1, v5.15.72, v6.0, v5.15.71, v5.15.70, v5.15.69, v5.15.68, v5.15.67, v5.15.66, v5.15.65, v5.15.64, v5.15.63, v5.15.62, v5.15.61, v5.15.60 |
|
#
5653f55e |
| 05-Aug-2022 |
Joanne Koong <joannelkoong@gmail.com> |
selftests/bpf: Clean up sys_nanosleep uses
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 ju
selftests/bpf: Clean up sys_nanosleep uses
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 <andrii@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Joanne Koong <joannelkoong@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220805171405.2272103-1-joannelkoong@gmail.com
show more ...
|
Revision tags: v5.15.59, v5.19, v5.15.58, v5.15.57, v5.15.56, v5.15.55, v5.15.54, v5.15.53, v5.15.52, v5.15.51, v5.15.50, v5.15.49, v5.15.48, v5.15.47, v5.15.46, v5.15.45, v5.15.44, v5.15.43, v5.15.42, v5.18, v5.15.41, v5.15.40, v5.15.39 |
|
#
ddc0027a |
| 10-May-2022 |
Kui-Feng Lee <kuifeng@fb.com> |
selftest/bpf: The test cases of BPF cookie for fentry/fexit/fmod_ret/lsm.
Make sure BPF cookies are correct for fentry/fexit/fmod_ret/lsm.
Signed-off-by: Kui-Feng Lee <kuifeng@fb.com> Signed-off-by
selftest/bpf: The test cases of BPF cookie for fentry/fexit/fmod_ret/lsm.
Make sure BPF cookies are correct for fentry/fexit/fmod_ret/lsm.
Signed-off-by: Kui-Feng Lee <kuifeng@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220510205923.3206889-6-kuifeng@fb.com
show more ...
|
Revision tags: v5.15.38, v5.15.37, v5.15.36, v5.15.35, v5.15.34, v5.15.33 |
|
#
39f8dc43 |
| 30-Mar-2022 |
Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@oracle.com> |
libbpf: Add auto-attach for uprobes based on section name
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
libbpf: Add auto-attach for uprobes based on section name
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 <alan.maguire@oracle.com> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/1648654000-21758-4-git-send-email-alan.maguire@oracle.com
show more ...
|
Revision tags: v5.15.32, v5.15.31, v5.17, v5.15.30, v5.15.29, v5.15.28, v5.15.27, v5.15.26, v5.15.25, v5.15.24, v5.15.23, v5.15.22, v5.15.21, v5.15.20, v5.15.19, v5.15.18, v5.15.17, v5.4.173, v5.15.16, v5.15.15, v5.16, v5.15.10, v5.15.9, v5.15.8, v5.15.7, v5.15.6, v5.15.5, v5.15.4, v5.15.3, v5.15.2, v5.15.1, v5.15, v5.14.14, v5.14.13, v5.14.12, v5.14.11, v5.14.10, v5.14.9, v5.14.8, v5.14.7, v5.14.6, v5.10.67, v5.10.66, v5.14.5, v5.14.4, v5.10.65, v5.14.3, v5.10.64, v5.14.2, v5.10.63, v5.14.1, v5.10.62, v5.14, v5.10.61, v5.10.60 |
|
#
0a80cf67 |
| 15-Aug-2021 |
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> |
selftests/bpf: Add bpf_cookie selftests for high-level APIs
Add selftest with few subtests testing proper bpf_cookie usage.
Kprobe and uprobe subtests are pretty straightforward and just validate t
selftests/bpf: Add bpf_cookie selftests for high-level APIs
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 <andrii@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210815070609.987780-15-andrii@kernel.org
show more ...
|