On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 4:05 AM Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 7:18 PM <menglong8.dong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > From: Menglong Dong <imagedong@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Add the testing for kprobe/uprobe attaching in legacy and perf mode. > > And the testing passed: > > > > ./test_progs -t attach_probe > > $5 attach_probe:OK > > Summary: 1/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED > > > > Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong <imagedong@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Do you mind refactoring attach_probe test into multiple subtests, > where each subtest will only test one of the attach mode and type. The > reason is that libbpf CI runs tests with latest selftests and libbpf > against old kernels (4.9 and 5.5, currently). Due to attach_probe > testing all these uprobe/kprobe attach modes with extra features (like > cookie, ref count, etc), we had to disable attach_probe test in libbpf > CI on old kernels. > > If we can split each individual uprobe/kprobe mode, that will give us > flexibility to selectively allowlist those tests that don't force > libbpf to use newer features (like cookies, LINK or PERF mode, etc). > > It would be a great improvement and highly appreciated! If you don't > mind doing this, let's do the split of existing use cases into subtest > in a separate patch, and then add PERF/LEGACY/LINK mode tests on top > of that patch. > Of course, with pleasure. For the existing use cases, we split it into subtests, such as: kprobe/kretprobe auto attach kprobe/kretprobe manual attach uprobe/uretprobe ref_ctr test uprobe/uretprobe auto attach sleepable kprobe/uprobe ...... Am I right? Thanks! Dongmeng Long > > > .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/attach_probe.c | 61 ++++++++++++++++++- > > .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_attach_probe.c | 32 ++++++++++ > > 2 files changed, 92 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > [...]
