Re: [PATCH] bpf/selftests: Fix __NR_uretprobe in uprobe_syscall test

[Google]

On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 00:19:20 +0900
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 12:15:09 +0200
> Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Fixing the __NR_uretprobe number in uprobe_syscall test,
> > because it changed due to merge conflict.
> > 
> 
> Ah, it is not enough, since Stephen's change is just a temporary fix on
> next tree. OK, Let me update it.

Hm, I thought I need to change all NR_uretprobe, but it makes NR_syscalls
list sparse. This may need to be solved on linus tree in merge window,
or I should merge (or rebase on) vfs-brauner tree before sending
probes/for-next.

Steve, do you have any idea? we talked about conflict on next tree[0].

[0] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240613114243.2a50059b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/

Thanks,

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c
> > index c8517c8f5313..bd8c75b620c2 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c
> > @@ -216,7 +216,7 @@ static void test_uretprobe_regs_change(void)
> >  }
> >  
> >  #ifndef __NR_uretprobe
> > -#define __NR_uretprobe 463
> > +#define __NR_uretprobe 467
> >  #endif
> >  
> >  __naked unsigned long uretprobe_syscall_call_1(void)
> > -- 
> > 2.45.1
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>


-- 
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>