Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 11:55 AM John Fastabend
> <john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 12:20 AM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 10:07:59PM -0700, John Fastabend wrote:
> > > > > Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 1:30 AM John Fastabend <john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Following ./Documentation/trace/kprobetrace.rst add support for loading
> > > > > > > kprobes programs on older kernels.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My main concern with this is that this code is born bit-rotten,
> > > > > > because selftests are never testing the legacy code path. How did you
> > > > > > think about testing this and ensuring that this keeps working going
> > > > > > forward?
> > > > >
> > > > > Well we use it, but I see your point and actually I even broke the retprobe
> > > > > piece hastily fixing merge conflicts in this patch. When I ran tests on it
> > > > > I missed running retprobe tests on the set of kernels that would hit that
> > > > > code.
> > > >
> > > > If it also gets explicitly exposed as bpf_program__attach_legacy_kprobe() or
> > > > such, it should be easy to add BPF selftests for that API to address the test
> > > > coverage concern. Generally more selftests for exposed libbpf APIs is good to
> > > > have anyway.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Agree about tests. Disagree about more APIs, especially that the only
> > > difference will be which underlying kernel machinery they are using to
> > > set everything up. We should ideally avoid exposing that to users.
> >
> > Maybe a build flag to build with only the older style supported for testing?
> > Then we could build, test in selftests at least. Be clear the flag is only
> > for testing and can not be relied upon.
>
> Build flag will necessitate another "flavor" of test_progs just to
> test this. That seems like an overkill.
>
> How about this approach:
Sure sounds good. I'll do this next week along with the uprobe pieces
as well so we can get both kprobe/uprobe running on older kernels.
>
> $ cat silent-features.c
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> int __attribute__((weak)) __bpf_internal__force_legacy_kprobe;
>
> int main() {
> if (__bpf_internal__force_legacy_kprobe)
> printf("LEGACY MODE!\n");
> else
> printf("FANCY NEW MODE!\n");
> return 0;
> }
> $ cat silent-features-testing.c
> int __bpf_internal__force_legacy_kprobe = 1;
> $ cc -g -O2 silent-features.c -o silent-features && ./silent-features
> FANCY NEW MODE!
> $ cc -g -O2 silent-features.c silent-features-testing.c -o
> silent-features && ./silent-features
> LEGACY MODE!
>
> This seems like an extensible mechanism without introducing any new
> public APIs or knobs, and we can control that in runtime. Some good
> naming convention to emphasize this is only for testing and internal
> needs, and I think it should be fine.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Daniel
