Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 4:16 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 4:50 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >> From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> >> >> The check_attach_btf_id() function really does three things: >> >> >> >> 1. It performs a bunch of checks on the program to ensure that the >> >> attachment is valid. >> >> >> >> 2. It stores a bunch of state about the attachment being requested in >> >> the verifier environment and struct bpf_prog objects. >> >> >> >> 3. It allocates a trampoline for the attachment. >> >> >> >> This patch splits out (1.) and (3.) into separate functions in preparation >> >> for reusing them when the actual attachment is happening (in the >> >> raw_tracepoint_open syscall operation), which will allow tracing programs >> >> to have multiple (compatible) attachments. >> >> >> >> No functional change is intended with this patch. >> >> >> >> Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@xxxxxx> >> >> Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> --- >> > >> > Ok, so bad news: you broke another selftest (test_overhead). Please, >> > do run test_progs and make sure everything succeeds, every time before >> > you post a new version. >> >> Right, so I looked into this, and it seems the only reason it was >> succeeding before were those skipped checks you pointed out that are now >> fixed. I.e., __set_task_comm() is not actually supposed to be >> fmod_ret'able according to check_attach_modify_return(). So I'm not sure >> what the right way to fix this is? > > You have to remove the fmod_ret part from test_overhead, it was never > supposed to work. Right, sure, that I can do :) -Toke
