On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 03:35:29PM +0100, Viktor Malik wrote:
SNIP
> + for (i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
> + load_opts.attach_btf_id = btf_id[i];
> + load_opts.attach_btf_obj_fd = btf_fd[i];
> + prog_fd[i] = bpf_prog_load(BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING, NULL, "GPL",
> + trace_program,
> + sizeof(trace_program) / sizeof(struct bpf_insn),
> + &load_opts);
> + if (!ASSERT_GE(prog_fd[i], 0, "bpf_prog_load"))
> + goto out;
> +
> + /* If the verifier incorrectly resolves addresses of the
> + * shadowed functions and uses the same address for both the
> + * vmlinux and the bpf_testmod functions, this will fail on
> + * attempting to create two trampolines for the same address,
> + * which is forbidden.
> + */
> + link_fd[i] = bpf_link_create(prog_fd[i], 0, BPF_TRACE_FENTRY, NULL);
> + if (!ASSERT_GE(link_fd[i], 0, "bpf_link_create"))
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + err = bpf_prog_test_run_opts(prog_fd[0], NULL);
> + ASSERT_OK(err, "running test");
> +
> +out:
> + btf__free(vmlinux_btf);
> + btf__free(mod_btf);
> + for (i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
> + if (btf_fd[i])
> + close(btf_fd[i]);
> + if (prog_fd[i])
> + close(prog_fd[i]);
should we check prog_fd[i] > 0 ? same below
jirka
> + if (link_fd[i])
> + close(link_fd[i]);
> + }
> +}
> --
> 2.39.1
>
