On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 6:42 AM Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> attach_probe test fails, because it cannot install a kprobe on a
> non-existent sys_nanosleep symbol.
>
> Use the correct symbol name for the nanosleep syscall on 64-bit s390.
> Don't bother adding one for 31-bit mode, since tests are compiled only
> in 64-bit mode.
>
> Fixes: 1e8611bbdfc9 ("selftests/bpf: add kprobe/uprobe selftests")
> Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Acked-by: Vasily Gorbik <gor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@xxxxxx>
This arch-specific naming is very unfortunate. I'm thinking of doing
this automatically in libbpf to help usability.
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/attach_probe.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/attach_probe.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/attach_probe.c
> index a4686395522c..47af4afc5013 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/attach_probe.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/attach_probe.c
> @@ -23,6 +23,8 @@ ssize_t get_base_addr() {
>
> #ifdef __x86_64__
> #define SYS_KPROBE_NAME "__x64_sys_nanosleep"
> +#elif defined(__s390x__)
> +#define SYS_KPROBE_NAME "__s390x_sys_nanosleep"
> #else
> #define SYS_KPROBE_NAME "sys_nanosleep"
> #endif
> --
> 2.21.0
>
