On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 1:47 PM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 1:34 PM Alexei Starovoitov
> <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 4:18 PM Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Make sure to not use ref_ctr_off feature when running on old kernels
> > > that don't support this feature. This allows to test libbpf's legacy
> > > kprobe and uprobe logic on old kernels.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/attach_probe.c | 16 ++++++++++++----
> > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/attach_probe.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/attach_probe.c
> > > index bf307bb9e446..cbd6b6175d5c 100644
> > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/attach_probe.c
> > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/attach_probe.c
> > > @@ -14,6 +14,12 @@ void test_attach_probe(void)
> > > struct test_attach_probe* skel;
> > > size_t uprobe_offset;
> > > ssize_t base_addr, ref_ctr_offset;
> > > + bool legacy;
> > > +
> > > + /* check is new-style kprobe/uprobe API is supported */
> > > + legacy = access("/sys/bus/event_source/devices/kprobe/type", F_OK) != 0;
> > > +
> > > + legacy = true;
> >
> > What is the idea of the above?
> > One of them is a leftover?
>
> Oh, sorry, `legacy = true` was me locally testing, forgot to remove
> that. This will be properly tested in libbpf CI where we have 4.9
> kernel, I was just trying to simulate this locally on modern kernel.
> I'll re-submit with this removed.
Got it.
Could you explain how access() works to detect it?
