On Sat, Feb 4, 2023 at 1:58 AM Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 2/3/23 10:28 AM, Grant Seltzer wrote:
> > This patch changes the behavior of how BPF_PROG_RUN treats tracing
> > (fentry/fexit) programs. Previously only a return value is injected
> > but the actual program was not run.
>
> hmm... I don't understand this. The actual program is run by attaching to the
> bpf_fentry_test{1,2,3...}. eg. The test in fentry_test.c
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying in order to use the
BPF_PROG_RUN bpf syscall command the user must first attach to
`bpf_fentry_test1` (or any 1-8), and then execute the BPF_PROG_RUN?
>
> > New behavior mirrors that of running raw tracepoint BPF programs which
> > actually runs the instructions of the program via `bpf_prog_run()`
>
> Which tracepoint and how is it tested?
I was referring to the `bpf_prog_test_run_raw_tp()` function in the
same file. I can write additional selftests
>
> The CI kernel is crashing:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20230203182812.20657-1-grantseltzer@xxxxxxxxx/
>
Thanks for linking to this, I was unaware of this being available!
