Skip to content

Conversation

@JiangbiaoDeng
Copy link

rebase from torvalds/linux

@KernelPRBot
Copy link

Hi @JiangbiaoDeng!

Thanks for your contribution to the Linux kernel!

Linux kernel development happens on mailing lists, rather than on GitHub - this GitHub repository is a read-only mirror that isn't used for accepting contributions. So that your change can become part of Linux, please email it to us as a patch.

Sending patches isn't quite as simple as sending a pull request, but fortunately it is a well documented process.

Here's what to do:

  • Format your contribution according to kernel requirements
  • Decide who to send your contribution to
  • Set up your system to send your contribution as an email
  • Send your contribution and wait for feedback

How do I format my contribution?

The Linux kernel community is notoriously picky about how contributions are formatted and sent. Fortunately, they have documented their expectations.

Firstly, all contributions need to be formatted as patches. A patch is a plain text document showing the change you want to make to the code, and documenting why it is a good idea.

You can create patches with git format-patch.

Secondly, patches need 'commit messages', which is the human-friendly documentation explaining what the change is and why it's necessary.

Thirdly, changes have some technical requirements. There is a Linux kernel coding style, and there are licensing requirements you need to comply with.

Both of these are documented in the Submitting Patches documentation that is part of the kernel.

Note that you will almost certainly have to modify your existing git commits to satisfy these requirements. Don't worry: there are many guides on the internet for doing this.

Who do I send my contribution to?

The Linux kernel is composed of a number of subsystems. These subsystems are maintained by different people, and have different mailing lists where they discuss proposed changes.

If you don't already know what subsystem your change belongs to, the get_maintainer.pl script in the kernel source can help you.

get_maintainer.pl will take the patch or patches you created in the previous step, and tell you who is responsible for them, and what mailing lists are used. You can also take a look at the MAINTAINERS file by hand.

Make sure that your list of recipients includes a mailing list. If you can't find a more specific mailing list, then LKML - the Linux Kernel Mailing List - is the place to send your patches.

It's not usually necessary to subscribe to the mailing list before you send the patches, but if you're interested in kernel development, subscribing to a subsystem mailing list is a good idea. (At this point, you probably don't need to subscribe to LKML - it is a very high traffic list with about a thousand messages per day, which is often not useful for beginners.)

How do I send my contribution?

Use git send-email, which will ensure that your patches are formatted in the standard manner. In order to use git send-email, you'll need to configure git to use your SMTP email server.

For more information about using git send-email, look at the Git documentation or type git help send-email. There are a number of useful guides and tutorials about git send-email that can be found on the internet.

How do I get help if I'm stuck?

Firstly, don't get discouraged! There are an enormous number of resources on the internet, and many kernel developers who would like to see you succeed.

Many issues - especially about how to use certain tools - can be resolved by using your favourite internet search engine.

If you can't find an answer, there are a few places you can turn:

  • Kernel Newbies - this website contains a lot of useful resources for new kernel developers.
  • If you'd like a step-by-step, challenge-based introduction to kernel development, the Eudyptula Challenge would be an excellent start.
  • The kernel documentation - see also the Documentation directory in the kernel tree.

If you get really, really stuck, you could try the owners of this bot, @daxtens and @ajdlinux. Please be aware that we do have full-time jobs, so we are almost certainly the slowest way to get answers!

I sent my patch - now what?

You wait.

You can check that your email has been received by checking the mailing list archives for the mailing list you sent your patch to. Messages may not be received instantly, so be patient. Kernel developers are generally very busy people, so it may take a few weeks before your patch is looked at.

Then, you keep waiting. Three things may happen:

  • You might get a response to your email. Often these will be comments, which may require you to make changes to your patch, or explain why your way is the best way. You should respond to these comments, and you may need to submit another revision of your patch to address the issues raised.
  • Your patch might be merged into the subsystem tree. Code that becomes part of Linux isn't merged into the main repository straight away - it first goes into the subsystem tree, which is managed by the subsystem maintainer. It is then batched up with a number of other changes sent to Linus for inclusion. (This process is described in some detail in the kernel development process guide).
  • Your patch might be ignored completely. This happens sometimes - don't take it personally. Here's what to do:
    • Wait a bit more - patches often take several weeks to get a response; more if they were sent at a busy time.
    • Kernel developers often silently ignore patches that break the rules. Check for obvious violations of the the Submitting Patches guidelines, the style guidelines, and any other documentation you can find about your subsystem. Check that you're sending your patch to the right place.
    • Try again later. When you resend it, don't add angry commentary, as that will get your patch ignored. It might also get you silently blacklisted.

Further information

Happy hacking!

This message was posted by a bot - if you have any questions or suggestions, please talk to my owners, @ajdlinux and @daxtens, or raise an issue at https://github.com/ajdlinux/KernelPRBot.

@JiangbiaoDeng
Copy link
Author

Leave a comment

@JiangbiaoDeng
Copy link
Author

Leave a comment

fengguang pushed a commit to 0day-ci/linux that referenced this pull request Apr 26, 2021
while testing re-assembly/re-fragmentation using act_ct, it's possible to
observe a crash like the following one:

 KASAN: maybe wild-memory-access in range [0x0001000000000448-0x000100000000044f]
 CPU: 50 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/50 Tainted: G S                5.12.0-rc7+ torvalds#424
 Hardware name: Dell Inc. PowerEdge R730/072T6D, BIOS 2.4.3 01/17/2017
 RIP: 0010:inet_frag_rbtree_purge+0x50/0xc0
 Code: 00 fc ff df 48 89 c3 31 ed 48 89 df e8 a9 7a 38 ff 4c 89 fe 48 89 df 49 89 c6 e8 5b 3a 38 ff 48 8d 7b 40 48 89 f8 48 c1 e8 03 <42> 80 3c 20 00 75 59 48 8d bb d0 00 00 00 4c 8b 6b 40 48 89 f8 48
 RSP: 0018:ffff888c31449db8 EFLAGS: 00010203
 RAX: 0000200000000089 RBX: 000100000000040e RCX: ffffffff989eb960
 RDX: 0000000000000140 RSI: ffffffff97cfb977 RDI: 000100000000044e
 RBP: 0000000000000900 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: ffffed1186289350
 R10: 0000000000000003 R11: ffffed1186289350 R12: dffffc0000000000
 R13: 000100000000040e R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff888155e02160
 FS:  0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff888c31440000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
 CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
 CR2: 00005600cb70a5b8 CR3: 0000000a2c014005 CR4: 00000000003706e0
 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
 Call Trace:
  <IRQ>
  inet_frag_destroy+0xa9/0x150
  call_timer_fn+0x2d/0x180
  run_timer_softirq+0x4fe/0xe70
  __do_softirq+0x197/0x5a0
  irq_exit_rcu+0x1de/0x200
  sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x6b/0x80
  </IRQ>

when act_ct temporarily stores an IP fragment, restoring the skb qdisc cb
results in putting random data in FRAG_CB(), and this causes those "wild"
memory accesses later, when the rbtree is purged. Never overwrite the skb
cb in case tcf_ct_handle_fragments() returns -EINPROGRESS.

Fixes: ae372cb ("net/sched: act_ct: fix restore the qdisc_skb_cb after defrag")
Fixes: 7baf242 ("net/sched: cls_flower add CT_FLAGS_INVALID flag support")
Reported-by: Shuang Li <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Davide Caratti <[email protected]>
fengguang pushed a commit to 0day-ci/linux that referenced this pull request Apr 27, 2021
while testing re-assembly/re-fragmentation using act_ct, it's possible to
observe a crash like the following one:

 KASAN: maybe wild-memory-access in range [0x0001000000000448-0x000100000000044f]
 CPU: 50 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/50 Tainted: G S                5.12.0-rc7+ torvalds#424
 Hardware name: Dell Inc. PowerEdge R730/072T6D, BIOS 2.4.3 01/17/2017
 RIP: 0010:inet_frag_rbtree_purge+0x50/0xc0
 Code: 00 fc ff df 48 89 c3 31 ed 48 89 df e8 a9 7a 38 ff 4c 89 fe 48 89 df 49 89 c6 e8 5b 3a 38 ff 48 8d 7b 40 48 89 f8 48 c1 e8 03 <42> 80 3c 20 00 75 59 48 8d bb d0 00 00 00 4c 8b 6b 40 48 89 f8 48
 RSP: 0018:ffff888c31449db8 EFLAGS: 00010203
 RAX: 0000200000000089 RBX: 000100000000040e RCX: ffffffff989eb960
 RDX: 0000000000000140 RSI: ffffffff97cfb977 RDI: 000100000000044e
 RBP: 0000000000000900 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: ffffed1186289350
 R10: 0000000000000003 R11: ffffed1186289350 R12: dffffc0000000000
 R13: 000100000000040e R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff888155e02160
 FS:  0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff888c31440000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
 CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
 CR2: 00005600cb70a5b8 CR3: 0000000a2c014005 CR4: 00000000003706e0
 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
 Call Trace:
  <IRQ>
  inet_frag_destroy+0xa9/0x150
  call_timer_fn+0x2d/0x180
  run_timer_softirq+0x4fe/0xe70
  __do_softirq+0x197/0x5a0
  irq_exit_rcu+0x1de/0x200
  sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x6b/0x80
  </IRQ>

when act_ct temporarily stores an IP fragment, restoring the skb qdisc cb
results in putting random data in FRAG_CB(), and this causes those "wild"
memory accesses later, when the rbtree is purged. Never overwrite the skb
cb in case tcf_ct_handle_fragments() returns -EINPROGRESS.

Fixes: ae372cb ("net/sched: act_ct: fix restore the qdisc_skb_cb after defrag")
Fixes: 7baf242 ("net/sched: cls_flower add CT_FLAGS_INVALID flag support")
Reported-by: Shuang Li <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Davide Caratti <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <[email protected]>
nareshkamboju pushed a commit to nareshkamboju/linux that referenced this pull request May 13, 2021
[ Upstream commit f77bd54 ]

while testing re-assembly/re-fragmentation using act_ct, it's possible to
observe a crash like the following one:

 KASAN: maybe wild-memory-access in range [0x0001000000000448-0x000100000000044f]
 CPU: 50 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/50 Tainted: G S                5.12.0-rc7+ torvalds#424
 Hardware name: Dell Inc. PowerEdge R730/072T6D, BIOS 2.4.3 01/17/2017
 RIP: 0010:inet_frag_rbtree_purge+0x50/0xc0
 Code: 00 fc ff df 48 89 c3 31 ed 48 89 df e8 a9 7a 38 ff 4c 89 fe 48 89 df 49 89 c6 e8 5b 3a 38 ff 48 8d 7b 40 48 89 f8 48 c1 e8 03 <42> 80 3c 20 00 75 59 48 8d bb d0 00 00 00 4c 8b 6b 40 48 89 f8 48
 RSP: 0018:ffff888c31449db8 EFLAGS: 00010203
 RAX: 0000200000000089 RBX: 000100000000040e RCX: ffffffff989eb960
 RDX: 0000000000000140 RSI: ffffffff97cfb977 RDI: 000100000000044e
 RBP: 0000000000000900 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: ffffed1186289350
 R10: 0000000000000003 R11: ffffed1186289350 R12: dffffc0000000000
 R13: 000100000000040e R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff888155e02160
 FS:  0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff888c31440000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
 CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
 CR2: 00005600cb70a5b8 CR3: 0000000a2c014005 CR4: 00000000003706e0
 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
 Call Trace:
  <IRQ>
  inet_frag_destroy+0xa9/0x150
  call_timer_fn+0x2d/0x180
  run_timer_softirq+0x4fe/0xe70
  __do_softirq+0x197/0x5a0
  irq_exit_rcu+0x1de/0x200
  sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x6b/0x80
  </IRQ>

when act_ct temporarily stores an IP fragment, restoring the skb qdisc cb
results in putting random data in FRAG_CB(), and this causes those "wild"
memory accesses later, when the rbtree is purged. Never overwrite the skb
cb in case tcf_ct_handle_fragments() returns -EINPROGRESS.

Fixes: ae372cb ("net/sched: act_ct: fix restore the qdisc_skb_cb after defrag")
Fixes: 7baf242 ("net/sched: cls_flower add CT_FLAGS_INVALID flag support")
Reported-by: Shuang Li <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Davide Caratti <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
intersectRaven pushed a commit to intersectRaven/linux that referenced this pull request May 14, 2021
[ Upstream commit f77bd54 ]

while testing re-assembly/re-fragmentation using act_ct, it's possible to
observe a crash like the following one:

 KASAN: maybe wild-memory-access in range [0x0001000000000448-0x000100000000044f]
 CPU: 50 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/50 Tainted: G S                5.12.0-rc7+ torvalds#424
 Hardware name: Dell Inc. PowerEdge R730/072T6D, BIOS 2.4.3 01/17/2017
 RIP: 0010:inet_frag_rbtree_purge+0x50/0xc0
 Code: 00 fc ff df 48 89 c3 31 ed 48 89 df e8 a9 7a 38 ff 4c 89 fe 48 89 df 49 89 c6 e8 5b 3a 38 ff 48 8d 7b 40 48 89 f8 48 c1 e8 03 <42> 80 3c 20 00 75 59 48 8d bb d0 00 00 00 4c 8b 6b 40 48 89 f8 48
 RSP: 0018:ffff888c31449db8 EFLAGS: 00010203
 RAX: 0000200000000089 RBX: 000100000000040e RCX: ffffffff989eb960
 RDX: 0000000000000140 RSI: ffffffff97cfb977 RDI: 000100000000044e
 RBP: 0000000000000900 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: ffffed1186289350
 R10: 0000000000000003 R11: ffffed1186289350 R12: dffffc0000000000
 R13: 000100000000040e R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff888155e02160
 FS:  0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff888c31440000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
 CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
 CR2: 00005600cb70a5b8 CR3: 0000000a2c014005 CR4: 00000000003706e0
 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
 Call Trace:
  <IRQ>
  inet_frag_destroy+0xa9/0x150
  call_timer_fn+0x2d/0x180
  run_timer_softirq+0x4fe/0xe70
  __do_softirq+0x197/0x5a0
  irq_exit_rcu+0x1de/0x200
  sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x6b/0x80
  </IRQ>

when act_ct temporarily stores an IP fragment, restoring the skb qdisc cb
results in putting random data in FRAG_CB(), and this causes those "wild"
memory accesses later, when the rbtree is purged. Never overwrite the skb
cb in case tcf_ct_handle_fragments() returns -EINPROGRESS.

Fixes: ae372cb ("net/sched: act_ct: fix restore the qdisc_skb_cb after defrag")
Fixes: 7baf242 ("net/sched: cls_flower add CT_FLAGS_INVALID flag support")
Reported-by: Shuang Li <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Davide Caratti <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
gatieme pushed a commit to gatieme/linux that referenced this pull request Nov 24, 2022
ANBZ: torvalds#424

commit: 1756d79 upstream

cgroup process migration permission checks are performed at write time as
whether a given operation is allowed or not is dependent on the content of
the write - the PID. This currently uses current's credentials which is a
potential security weakness as it may allow scenarios where a less
privileged process tricks a more privileged one into writing into a fd that
it created.

This patch makes both cgroup2 and cgroup1 process migration interfaces to
use the credentials saved at the time of open (file->f_cred) instead of
current's.

Reported-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <[email protected]>
Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
Fixes: 187fe84 ("cgroup: require write perm on common ancestor when moving processes on the default hierarchy")
Reviewed-by: Michal Koutný <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <[email protected]>
[Yi Tao: adapt anolis codebase]
Signed-off-by: Yi Tao <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Shanpei Chen <[email protected]>
gatieme pushed a commit to gatieme/linux that referenced this pull request Nov 24, 2022
ANBZ: torvalds#424

commit: 0d2b595 upstream

of->priv is currently used by each interface file implementation to store
private information. This patch collects the current two private data usages
into struct cgroup_file_ctx which is allocated and freed by the common path.
This allows generic private data which applies to multiple files, which will
be used to in the following patch.

Note that cgroup_procs iterator is now embedded as procs.iter in the new
cgroup_file_ctx so that it doesn't need to be allocated and freed
separately.

v2: union dropped from cgroup_file_ctx and the procs iterator is embedded in
    cgroup_file_ctx as suggested by Linus.

v3: Michal pointed out that cgroup1's procs pidlist uses of->priv too.
    Converted. Didn't change to embedded allocation as cgroup1 pidlists get
    stored for caching.

Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <[email protected]>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Michal Koutný <[email protected]>
[Yi Tao: adapt anolis codebase]
Signed-off-by: Yi Tao <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Shanpei Chen <[email protected]>
gatieme pushed a commit to gatieme/linux that referenced this pull request Nov 24, 2022
ANBZ: torvalds#424

commit: e574576 upstream

cgroup process migration permission checks are performed at write time as
whether a given operation is allowed or not is dependent on the content of
the write - the PID. This currently uses current's cgroup namespace which is
a potential security weakness as it may allow scenarios where a less
privileged process tricks a more privileged one into writing into a fd that
it created.

This patch makes cgroup remember the cgroup namespace at the time of open
and uses it for migration permission checks instad of current's. Note that
this only applies to cgroup2 as cgroup1 doesn't have namespace support.

This also fixes a use-after-free bug on cgroupns reported in

 https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]

Note that backporting this fix also requires the preceding patch.

Reported-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <[email protected]>
Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
Cc: Michal Koutný <[email protected]>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Michal Koutný <[email protected]>
Reported-by: [email protected]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
Fixes: 5136f63 ("cgroup: implement "nsdelegate" mount option")
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <[email protected]>
[Yi Tao: adapt anolis codebase]
Signed-off-by: Yi Tao <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Shanpei Chen <[email protected]>
gatieme pushed a commit to gatieme/linux that referenced this pull request Nov 24, 2022
…f 0644

ANBZ: torvalds#424

commit: b09c2ba upstream

0644 is an odd perm to create a cgroup which is a directory. Use the regular
0755 instead. This is necessary for euid switching test case.

Reviewed-by: Michal Koutný <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Yi Tao <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Shanpei Chen <[email protected]>
gatieme pushed a commit to gatieme/linux that referenced this pull request Nov 24, 2022
ANBZ: torvalds#424

commit 613e040 upstream

When a task is writing to an fd opened by a different task, the perm check
should use the credentials of the latter task. Add a test for it.

Tested-by: Michal Koutný <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <[email protected]>
[Yi Tao: adapt anolis codebase]
Signed-off-by: Yi Tao <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Shanpei Chen <[email protected]>
gatieme pushed a commit to gatieme/linux that referenced this pull request Nov 24, 2022
…n checks

ANBZ: torvalds#424

commit bf35a78 upstream

When a task is writing to an fd opened by a different task, the perm check
should use the cgroup namespace of the latter task. Add a test for it.

Tested-by: Michal Koutný <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <[email protected]>
[Yi Tao: adapt anolis codebase]
Signed-off-by: Yi Tao <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Shanpei Chen <[email protected]>
guidosarducci added a commit to guidosarducci/linux that referenced this pull request Aug 23, 2025
Have error:

  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:uprobe_offset 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:check_bss 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:attach_uprobe 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:FAIL:check_uprobe_res unexpected check_uprobe_res: actual 0 != expected 1
  torvalds#424     task_pt_regs:FAIL

due to progs/test_task_pt_regs.c using:

  #define PT_REGS_SIZE sizeof(struct pt_regs)

which is non-CORE and evaluates to wrong size in 64-bit BPF VM.

Workaround is using bpf_core_type_size() to limit the actual read but
leave the potentially larger PT_REGS_SIZE for the allocation.

Signed-off-by: Tony Ambardar <[email protected]>
guidosarducci added a commit to guidosarducci/linux that referenced this pull request Aug 23, 2025
Have error:

  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:uprobe_offset 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:check_bss 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:attach_uprobe 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:FAIL:check_uprobe_res unexpected check_uprobe_res: actual 0 != expected 1
  torvalds#424     task_pt_regs:FAIL

due to progs/test_task_pt_regs.c using:

  #define PT_REGS_SIZE sizeof(struct pt_regs)

which is non-CORE and evaluates to wrong size in 64-bit BPF VM.

Workaround is using bpf_core_type_size() to limit the actual read but
leave the potentially larger PT_REGS_SIZE for the allocation.

Signed-off-by: Tony Ambardar <[email protected]>
guidosarducci added a commit to guidosarducci/linux that referenced this pull request Aug 28, 2025
Have error:

  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:uprobe_offset 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:check_bss 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:attach_uprobe 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:FAIL:check_uprobe_res unexpected check_uprobe_res: actual 0 != expected 1
  torvalds#424     task_pt_regs:FAIL

due to progs/test_task_pt_regs.c using:

  #define PT_REGS_SIZE sizeof(struct pt_regs)

which is non-CORE and evaluates to wrong size in 64-bit BPF VM.

Workaround is using bpf_core_type_size() to limit the actual read but
leave the potentially larger PT_REGS_SIZE for the allocation.

Signed-off-by: Tony Ambardar <[email protected]>
guidosarducci added a commit to guidosarducci/linux that referenced this pull request Aug 29, 2025
Have error:

  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:uprobe_offset 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:check_bss 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:attach_uprobe 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:FAIL:check_uprobe_res unexpected check_uprobe_res: actual 0 != expected 1
  torvalds#424     task_pt_regs:FAIL

due to progs/test_task_pt_regs.c using:

  #define PT_REGS_SIZE sizeof(struct pt_regs)

which is non-CORE and evaluates to wrong size in 64-bit BPF VM.

Workaround is using bpf_core_type_size() to limit the actual read but
leave the potentially larger PT_REGS_SIZE for the allocation.

Signed-off-by: Tony Ambardar <[email protected]>
guidosarducci added a commit to guidosarducci/linux that referenced this pull request Sep 2, 2025
Have error:

  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:uprobe_offset 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:check_bss 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:attach_uprobe 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:FAIL:check_uprobe_res unexpected check_uprobe_res: actual 0 != expected 1
  torvalds#424     task_pt_regs:FAIL

due to progs/test_task_pt_regs.c using:

  #define PT_REGS_SIZE sizeof(struct pt_regs)

which is non-CORE and evaluates to wrong size in 64-bit BPF VM.

Workaround is using bpf_core_type_size() to limit the actual read but
leave the potentially larger PT_REGS_SIZE for the allocation.

Signed-off-by: Tony Ambardar <[email protected]>
guidosarducci added a commit to guidosarducci/linux that referenced this pull request Sep 5, 2025
Have error:

  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:uprobe_offset 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:check_bss 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:attach_uprobe 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:FAIL:check_uprobe_res unexpected check_uprobe_res: actual 0 != expected 1
  torvalds#424     task_pt_regs:FAIL

due to progs/test_task_pt_regs.c using:

  #define PT_REGS_SIZE sizeof(struct pt_regs)

which is non-CORE and evaluates to wrong size in 64-bit BPF VM.

Workaround is using bpf_core_type_size() to limit the actual read but
leave the potentially larger PT_REGS_SIZE for the allocation.

Signed-off-by: Tony Ambardar <[email protected]>
guidosarducci added a commit to guidosarducci/linux that referenced this pull request Sep 8, 2025
Have error:

  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:uprobe_offset 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:check_bss 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:attach_uprobe 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:FAIL:check_uprobe_res unexpected check_uprobe_res: actual 0 != expected 1
  torvalds#424     task_pt_regs:FAIL

due to progs/test_task_pt_regs.c using:

  #define PT_REGS_SIZE sizeof(struct pt_regs)

which is non-CORE and evaluates to wrong size in 64-bit BPF VM.

Workaround is using bpf_core_type_size() to limit the actual read but
leave the potentially larger PT_REGS_SIZE for the allocation.

Signed-off-by: Tony Ambardar <[email protected]>
guidosarducci added a commit to guidosarducci/linux that referenced this pull request Sep 10, 2025
Have error:

  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:uprobe_offset 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:check_bss 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:attach_uprobe 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:FAIL:check_uprobe_res unexpected check_uprobe_res: actual 0 != expected 1
  torvalds#424     task_pt_regs:FAIL

due to progs/test_task_pt_regs.c using:

  #define PT_REGS_SIZE sizeof(struct pt_regs)

which is non-CORE and evaluates to wrong size in 64-bit BPF VM.

Workaround is using bpf_core_type_size() to limit the actual read but
leave the potentially larger PT_REGS_SIZE for the allocation.

Signed-off-by: Tony Ambardar <[email protected]>
guidosarducci added a commit to guidosarducci/linux that referenced this pull request Sep 11, 2025
Have error:

  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:uprobe_offset 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:check_bss 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:attach_uprobe 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:FAIL:check_uprobe_res unexpected check_uprobe_res: actual 0 != expected 1
  torvalds#424     task_pt_regs:FAIL

due to progs/test_task_pt_regs.c using:

  #define PT_REGS_SIZE sizeof(struct pt_regs)

which is non-CORE and evaluates to wrong size in 64-bit BPF VM.

Workaround is using bpf_core_type_size() to limit the actual read but
leave the potentially larger PT_REGS_SIZE for the allocation.

Signed-off-by: Tony Ambardar <[email protected]>
guidosarducci added a commit to guidosarducci/linux that referenced this pull request Sep 13, 2025
Have error:

  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:uprobe_offset 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:check_bss 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:attach_uprobe 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:FAIL:check_uprobe_res unexpected check_uprobe_res: actual 0 != expected 1
  torvalds#424     task_pt_regs:FAIL

due to progs/test_task_pt_regs.c using:

  #define PT_REGS_SIZE sizeof(struct pt_regs)

which is non-CORE and evaluates to wrong size in 64-bit BPF VM.

Workaround is using bpf_core_type_size() to limit the actual read but
leave the potentially larger PT_REGS_SIZE for the allocation.

Signed-off-by: Tony Ambardar <[email protected]>
guidosarducci added a commit to guidosarducci/linux that referenced this pull request Sep 16, 2025
Have error:

  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:uprobe_offset 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:check_bss 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:attach_uprobe 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:FAIL:check_uprobe_res unexpected check_uprobe_res: actual 0 != expected 1
  torvalds#424     task_pt_regs:FAIL

due to progs/test_task_pt_regs.c using:

  #define PT_REGS_SIZE sizeof(struct pt_regs)

which is non-CORE and evaluates to wrong size in 64-bit BPF VM.

Workaround is using bpf_core_type_size() to limit the actual read but
leave the potentially larger PT_REGS_SIZE for the allocation.

Signed-off-by: Tony Ambardar <[email protected]>
guidosarducci added a commit to guidosarducci/linux that referenced this pull request Sep 17, 2025
Have error:

  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:uprobe_offset 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:check_bss 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:attach_uprobe 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:FAIL:check_uprobe_res unexpected check_uprobe_res: actual 0 != expected 1
  torvalds#424     task_pt_regs:FAIL

due to progs/test_task_pt_regs.c using:

  #define PT_REGS_SIZE sizeof(struct pt_regs)

which is non-CORE and evaluates to wrong size in 64-bit BPF VM.

Workaround is using bpf_core_type_size() to limit the actual read but
leave the potentially larger PT_REGS_SIZE for the allocation.

Signed-off-by: Tony Ambardar <[email protected]>
guidosarducci added a commit to guidosarducci/linux that referenced this pull request Sep 27, 2025
Have error:

  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:uprobe_offset 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:check_bss 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:attach_uprobe 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:FAIL:check_uprobe_res unexpected check_uprobe_res: actual 0 != expected 1
  torvalds#424     task_pt_regs:FAIL

due to progs/test_task_pt_regs.c using:

  #define PT_REGS_SIZE sizeof(struct pt_regs)

which is non-CORE and evaluates to wrong size in 64-bit BPF VM.

Workaround is using bpf_core_type_size() to limit the actual read but
leave the potentially larger PT_REGS_SIZE for the allocation.

Signed-off-by: Tony Ambardar <[email protected]>
guidosarducci added a commit to guidosarducci/linux that referenced this pull request Sep 27, 2025
Have error:

  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:uprobe_offset 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:check_bss 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:attach_uprobe 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:FAIL:check_uprobe_res unexpected check_uprobe_res: actual 0 != expected 1
  torvalds#424     task_pt_regs:FAIL

due to progs/test_task_pt_regs.c using:

  #define PT_REGS_SIZE sizeof(struct pt_regs)

which is non-CORE and evaluates to wrong size in 64-bit BPF VM.

Workaround is using bpf_core_type_size() to limit the actual read but
leave the potentially larger PT_REGS_SIZE for the allocation.

Signed-off-by: Tony Ambardar <[email protected]>
guidosarducci added a commit to guidosarducci/linux that referenced this pull request Oct 1, 2025
Have error:

  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:uprobe_offset 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:check_bss 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:attach_uprobe 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:FAIL:check_uprobe_res unexpected check_uprobe_res: actual 0 != expected 1
  torvalds#424     task_pt_regs:FAIL

due to progs/test_task_pt_regs.c using:

  #define PT_REGS_SIZE sizeof(struct pt_regs)

which is non-CORE and evaluates to wrong size in 64-bit BPF VM.

Workaround is using bpf_core_type_size() to limit the actual read but
leave the potentially larger PT_REGS_SIZE for the allocation.

Signed-off-by: Tony Ambardar <[email protected]>
guidosarducci added a commit to guidosarducci/linux that referenced this pull request Oct 10, 2025
Have error:

  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:uprobe_offset 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:check_bss 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:attach_uprobe 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:FAIL:check_uprobe_res unexpected check_uprobe_res: actual 0 != expected 1
  torvalds#424     task_pt_regs:FAIL

due to progs/test_task_pt_regs.c using:

  #define PT_REGS_SIZE sizeof(struct pt_regs)

which is non-CORE and evaluates to wrong size in 64-bit BPF VM.

Workaround is using bpf_core_type_size() to limit the actual read but
leave the potentially larger PT_REGS_SIZE for the allocation.

Signed-off-by: Tony Ambardar <[email protected]>
guidosarducci added a commit to guidosarducci/linux that referenced this pull request Oct 11, 2025
Have error:

  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:uprobe_offset 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:check_bss 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:attach_uprobe 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:FAIL:check_uprobe_res unexpected check_uprobe_res: actual 0 != expected 1
  torvalds#424     task_pt_regs:FAIL

due to progs/test_task_pt_regs.c using:

  #define PT_REGS_SIZE sizeof(struct pt_regs)

which is non-CORE and evaluates to wrong size in 64-bit BPF VM.

Workaround is using bpf_core_type_size() to limit the actual read but
leave the potentially larger PT_REGS_SIZE for the allocation.

Signed-off-by: Tony Ambardar <[email protected]>
guidosarducci added a commit to guidosarducci/linux that referenced this pull request Oct 15, 2025
Have error:

  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:uprobe_offset 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:check_bss 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:attach_uprobe 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:FAIL:check_uprobe_res unexpected check_uprobe_res: actual 0 != expected 1
  torvalds#424     task_pt_regs:FAIL

due to progs/test_task_pt_regs.c using:

  #define PT_REGS_SIZE sizeof(struct pt_regs)

which is non-CORE and evaluates to wrong size in 64-bit BPF VM.

Workaround is using bpf_core_type_size() to limit the actual read but
leave the potentially larger PT_REGS_SIZE for the allocation.

Signed-off-by: Tony Ambardar <[email protected]>
guidosarducci added a commit to guidosarducci/linux that referenced this pull request Oct 20, 2025
Have error:

  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:uprobe_offset 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:check_bss 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:attach_uprobe 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:FAIL:check_uprobe_res unexpected check_uprobe_res: actual 0 != expected 1
  torvalds#424     task_pt_regs:FAIL

due to progs/test_task_pt_regs.c using:

  #define PT_REGS_SIZE sizeof(struct pt_regs)

which is non-CORE and evaluates to wrong size in 64-bit BPF VM.

Workaround is using bpf_core_type_size() to limit the actual read but
leave the potentially larger PT_REGS_SIZE for the allocation.

Signed-off-by: Tony Ambardar <[email protected]>
guidosarducci added a commit to guidosarducci/linux that referenced this pull request Oct 21, 2025
Have error:

  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:uprobe_offset 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:check_bss 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:attach_uprobe 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:FAIL:check_uprobe_res unexpected check_uprobe_res: actual 0 != expected 1
  torvalds#424     task_pt_regs:FAIL

due to progs/test_task_pt_regs.c using:

  #define PT_REGS_SIZE sizeof(struct pt_regs)

which is non-CORE and evaluates to wrong size in 64-bit BPF VM.

Workaround is using bpf_core_type_size() to limit the actual read but
leave the potentially larger PT_REGS_SIZE for the allocation.

Signed-off-by: Tony Ambardar <[email protected]>
guidosarducci added a commit to guidosarducci/linux that referenced this pull request Oct 21, 2025
Have error:

  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:uprobe_offset 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:check_bss 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:attach_uprobe 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:FAIL:check_uprobe_res unexpected check_uprobe_res: actual 0 != expected 1
  torvalds#424     task_pt_regs:FAIL

due to progs/test_task_pt_regs.c using:

  #define PT_REGS_SIZE sizeof(struct pt_regs)

which is non-CORE and evaluates to wrong size in 64-bit BPF VM.

Workaround is using bpf_core_type_size() to limit the actual read but
leave the potentially larger PT_REGS_SIZE for the allocation.

Signed-off-by: Tony Ambardar <[email protected]>
guidosarducci added a commit to guidosarducci/linux that referenced this pull request Oct 21, 2025
Have error:

  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:uprobe_offset 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:check_bss 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:attach_uprobe 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:FAIL:check_uprobe_res unexpected check_uprobe_res: actual 0 != expected 1
  torvalds#424     task_pt_regs:FAIL

due to progs/test_task_pt_regs.c using:

  #define PT_REGS_SIZE sizeof(struct pt_regs)

which is non-CORE and evaluates to wrong size in 64-bit BPF VM.

Workaround is using bpf_core_type_size() to limit the actual read but
leave the potentially larger PT_REGS_SIZE for the allocation.

Signed-off-by: Tony Ambardar <[email protected]>
guidosarducci added a commit to guidosarducci/linux that referenced this pull request Oct 27, 2025
Have error:

  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:uprobe_offset 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:check_bss 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:attach_uprobe 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:FAIL:check_uprobe_res unexpected check_uprobe_res: actual 0 != expected 1
  torvalds#424     task_pt_regs:FAIL

due to progs/test_task_pt_regs.c using:

  #define PT_REGS_SIZE sizeof(struct pt_regs)

which is non-CORE and evaluates to wrong size in 64-bit BPF VM.

Workaround is using bpf_core_type_size() to limit the actual read but
leave the potentially larger PT_REGS_SIZE for the allocation.

Signed-off-by: Tony Ambardar <[email protected]>
guidosarducci added a commit to guidosarducci/linux that referenced this pull request Oct 27, 2025
Have error:

  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:uprobe_offset 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:check_bss 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:attach_uprobe 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:FAIL:check_uprobe_res unexpected check_uprobe_res: actual 0 != expected 1
  torvalds#424     task_pt_regs:FAIL

due to progs/test_task_pt_regs.c using:

  #define PT_REGS_SIZE sizeof(struct pt_regs)

which is non-CORE and evaluates to wrong size in 64-bit BPF VM.

Workaround is using bpf_core_type_size() to limit the actual read but
leave the potentially larger PT_REGS_SIZE for the allocation.

Signed-off-by: Tony Ambardar <[email protected]>
guidosarducci added a commit to guidosarducci/linux that referenced this pull request Oct 27, 2025
Have error:

  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:uprobe_offset 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:check_bss 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:attach_uprobe 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:FAIL:check_uprobe_res unexpected check_uprobe_res: actual 0 != expected 1
  torvalds#424     task_pt_regs:FAIL

due to progs/test_task_pt_regs.c using:

  #define PT_REGS_SIZE sizeof(struct pt_regs)

which is non-CORE and evaluates to wrong size in 64-bit BPF VM.

Workaround is using bpf_core_type_size() to limit the actual read but
leave the potentially larger PT_REGS_SIZE for the allocation.

Signed-off-by: Tony Ambardar <[email protected]>
guidosarducci added a commit to guidosarducci/linux that referenced this pull request Oct 27, 2025
Have error:

  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:uprobe_offset 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:check_bss 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:attach_uprobe 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:FAIL:check_uprobe_res unexpected check_uprobe_res: actual 0 != expected 1
  torvalds#424     task_pt_regs:FAIL

due to progs/test_task_pt_regs.c using:

  #define PT_REGS_SIZE sizeof(struct pt_regs)

which is non-CORE and evaluates to wrong size in 64-bit BPF VM.

Workaround is using bpf_core_type_size() to limit the actual read but
leave the potentially larger PT_REGS_SIZE for the allocation.

Signed-off-by: Tony Ambardar <[email protected]>
guidosarducci added a commit to guidosarducci/linux that referenced this pull request Oct 27, 2025
Have error:

  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:uprobe_offset 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:check_bss 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:attach_uprobe 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:FAIL:check_uprobe_res unexpected check_uprobe_res: actual 0 != expected 1
  torvalds#424     task_pt_regs:FAIL

due to progs/test_task_pt_regs.c using:

  #define PT_REGS_SIZE sizeof(struct pt_regs)

which is non-CORE and evaluates to wrong size in 64-bit BPF VM.

Workaround is using bpf_core_type_size() to limit the actual read but
leave the potentially larger PT_REGS_SIZE for the allocation.

Signed-off-by: Tony Ambardar <[email protected]>
guidosarducci added a commit to guidosarducci/linux that referenced this pull request Oct 28, 2025
Have error:

  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:uprobe_offset 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:check_bss 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:attach_uprobe 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:FAIL:check_uprobe_res unexpected check_uprobe_res: actual 0 != expected 1
  torvalds#424     task_pt_regs:FAIL

due to progs/test_task_pt_regs.c using:

  #define PT_REGS_SIZE sizeof(struct pt_regs)

which is non-CORE and evaluates to wrong size in 64-bit BPF VM.

Workaround is using bpf_core_type_size() to limit the actual read but
leave the potentially larger PT_REGS_SIZE for the allocation.

Signed-off-by: Tony Ambardar <[email protected]>
guidosarducci added a commit to guidosarducci/linux that referenced this pull request Oct 30, 2025
Have error:

  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:uprobe_offset 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:check_bss 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:attach_uprobe 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:FAIL:check_uprobe_res unexpected check_uprobe_res: actual 0 != expected 1
  torvalds#424     task_pt_regs:FAIL

due to progs/test_task_pt_regs.c using:

  #define PT_REGS_SIZE sizeof(struct pt_regs)

which is non-CORE and evaluates to wrong size in 64-bit BPF VM.

Workaround is using bpf_core_type_size() to limit the actual read but
leave the potentially larger PT_REGS_SIZE for the allocation.

Signed-off-by: Tony Ambardar <[email protected]>
guidosarducci added a commit to guidosarducci/linux that referenced this pull request Nov 3, 2025
Have error:

  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:uprobe_offset 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:check_bss 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:attach_uprobe 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:FAIL:check_uprobe_res unexpected check_uprobe_res: actual 0 != expected 1
  torvalds#424     task_pt_regs:FAIL

due to progs/test_task_pt_regs.c using:

  #define PT_REGS_SIZE sizeof(struct pt_regs)

which is non-CORE and evaluates to wrong size in 64-bit BPF VM.

Workaround is using bpf_core_type_size() to limit the actual read but
leave the potentially larger PT_REGS_SIZE for the allocation.

Signed-off-by: Tony Ambardar <[email protected]>
guidosarducci added a commit to guidosarducci/linux that referenced this pull request Nov 5, 2025
Have error:

  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:uprobe_offset 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:check_bss 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:attach_uprobe 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:FAIL:check_uprobe_res unexpected check_uprobe_res: actual 0 != expected 1
  torvalds#424     task_pt_regs:FAIL

due to progs/test_task_pt_regs.c using:

  #define PT_REGS_SIZE sizeof(struct pt_regs)

which is non-CORE and evaluates to wrong size in 64-bit BPF VM.

Workaround is using bpf_core_type_size() to limit the actual read but
leave the potentially larger PT_REGS_SIZE for the allocation.

Signed-off-by: Tony Ambardar <[email protected]>
guidosarducci added a commit to guidosarducci/linux that referenced this pull request Nov 5, 2025
Have error:

  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:uprobe_offset 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:check_bss 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:attach_uprobe 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:FAIL:check_uprobe_res unexpected check_uprobe_res: actual 0 != expected 1
  torvalds#424     task_pt_regs:FAIL

due to progs/test_task_pt_regs.c using:

  #define PT_REGS_SIZE sizeof(struct pt_regs)

which is non-CORE and evaluates to wrong size in 64-bit BPF VM.

Workaround is using bpf_core_type_size() to limit the actual read but
leave the potentially larger PT_REGS_SIZE for the allocation.

Signed-off-by: Tony Ambardar <[email protected]>
guidosarducci added a commit to guidosarducci/linux that referenced this pull request Nov 7, 2025
Have error:

  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:uprobe_offset 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:check_bss 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:attach_uprobe 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:FAIL:check_uprobe_res unexpected check_uprobe_res: actual 0 != expected 1
  torvalds#424     task_pt_regs:FAIL

due to progs/test_task_pt_regs.c using:

  #define PT_REGS_SIZE sizeof(struct pt_regs)

which is non-CORE and evaluates to wrong size in 64-bit BPF VM.

Workaround is using bpf_core_type_size() to limit the actual read but
leave the potentially larger PT_REGS_SIZE for the allocation.

Signed-off-by: Tony Ambardar <[email protected]>
guidosarducci added a commit to guidosarducci/linux that referenced this pull request Nov 15, 2025
Have error:

  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:uprobe_offset 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:check_bss 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:attach_uprobe 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:FAIL:check_uprobe_res unexpected check_uprobe_res: actual 0 != expected 1
  torvalds#424     task_pt_regs:FAIL

due to progs/test_task_pt_regs.c using:

  #define PT_REGS_SIZE sizeof(struct pt_regs)

which is non-CORE and evaluates to wrong size in 64-bit BPF VM.

Workaround is using bpf_core_type_size() to limit the actual read but
leave the potentially larger PT_REGS_SIZE for the allocation.

Signed-off-by: Tony Ambardar <[email protected]>
guidosarducci added a commit to guidosarducci/linux that referenced this pull request Nov 16, 2025
Have error:

  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:uprobe_offset 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:check_bss 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:attach_uprobe 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:FAIL:check_uprobe_res unexpected check_uprobe_res: actual 0 != expected 1
  torvalds#424     task_pt_regs:FAIL

due to progs/test_task_pt_regs.c using:

  #define PT_REGS_SIZE sizeof(struct pt_regs)

which is non-CORE and evaluates to wrong size in 64-bit BPF VM.

Workaround is using bpf_core_type_size() to limit the actual read but
leave the potentially larger PT_REGS_SIZE for the allocation.

Signed-off-by: Tony Ambardar <[email protected]>
guidosarducci added a commit to guidosarducci/linux that referenced this pull request Nov 20, 2025
Have error:

  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:uprobe_offset 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:check_bss 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:attach_uprobe 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:FAIL:check_uprobe_res unexpected check_uprobe_res: actual 0 != expected 1
  torvalds#424     task_pt_regs:FAIL

due to progs/test_task_pt_regs.c using:

  #define PT_REGS_SIZE sizeof(struct pt_regs)

which is non-CORE and evaluates to wrong size in 64-bit BPF VM.

Workaround is using bpf_core_type_size() to limit the actual read but
leave the potentially larger PT_REGS_SIZE for the allocation.

Signed-off-by: Tony Ambardar <[email protected]>
guidosarducci added a commit to guidosarducci/linux that referenced this pull request Nov 22, 2025
Have error:

  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:uprobe_offset 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:check_bss 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:attach_uprobe 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:FAIL:check_uprobe_res unexpected check_uprobe_res: actual 0 != expected 1
  torvalds#424     task_pt_regs:FAIL

due to progs/test_task_pt_regs.c using:

  #define PT_REGS_SIZE sizeof(struct pt_regs)

which is non-CORE and evaluates to wrong size in 64-bit BPF VM.

Workaround is using bpf_core_type_size() to limit the actual read but
leave the potentially larger PT_REGS_SIZE for the allocation.

Signed-off-by: Tony Ambardar <[email protected]>
guidosarducci added a commit to guidosarducci/linux that referenced this pull request Nov 23, 2025
Have error:

  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:uprobe_offset 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:check_bss 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:attach_uprobe 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:FAIL:check_uprobe_res unexpected check_uprobe_res: actual 0 != expected 1
  torvalds#424     task_pt_regs:FAIL

due to progs/test_task_pt_regs.c using:

  #define PT_REGS_SIZE sizeof(struct pt_regs)

which is non-CORE and evaluates to wrong size in 64-bit BPF VM.

Workaround is using bpf_core_type_size() to limit the actual read but
leave the potentially larger PT_REGS_SIZE for the allocation.

Signed-off-by: Tony Ambardar <[email protected]>
guidosarducci added a commit to guidosarducci/linux that referenced this pull request Nov 23, 2025
Have error:

  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:uprobe_offset 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:check_bss 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:attach_uprobe 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:FAIL:check_uprobe_res unexpected check_uprobe_res: actual 0 != expected 1
  torvalds#424     task_pt_regs:FAIL

due to progs/test_task_pt_regs.c using:

  #define PT_REGS_SIZE sizeof(struct pt_regs)

which is non-CORE and evaluates to wrong size in 64-bit BPF VM.

Workaround is using bpf_core_type_size() to limit the actual read but
leave the potentially larger PT_REGS_SIZE for the allocation.

Signed-off-by: Tony Ambardar <[email protected]>
guidosarducci added a commit to guidosarducci/linux that referenced this pull request Nov 23, 2025
Have error:

  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:uprobe_offset 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:check_bss 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:attach_uprobe 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:FAIL:check_uprobe_res unexpected check_uprobe_res: actual 0 != expected 1
  torvalds#424     task_pt_regs:FAIL

due to progs/test_task_pt_regs.c using:

  #define PT_REGS_SIZE sizeof(struct pt_regs)

which is non-CORE and evaluates to wrong size in 64-bit BPF VM.

Workaround is using bpf_core_type_size() to limit the actual read but
leave the potentially larger PT_REGS_SIZE for the allocation.

Signed-off-by: Tony Ambardar <[email protected]>
guidosarducci added a commit to guidosarducci/linux that referenced this pull request Nov 25, 2025
Have error:

  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:uprobe_offset 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:check_bss 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:attach_uprobe 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:FAIL:check_uprobe_res unexpected check_uprobe_res: actual 0 != expected 1
  torvalds#424     task_pt_regs:FAIL

due to progs/test_task_pt_regs.c using:

  #define PT_REGS_SIZE sizeof(struct pt_regs)

which is non-CORE and evaluates to wrong size in 64-bit BPF VM.

Workaround is using bpf_core_type_size() to limit the actual read but
leave the potentially larger PT_REGS_SIZE for the allocation.

Signed-off-by: Tony Ambardar <[email protected]>
guidosarducci added a commit to guidosarducci/linux that referenced this pull request Nov 26, 2025
Have error:

  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:uprobe_offset 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:check_bss 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:PASS:attach_uprobe 0 nsec
  test_task_pt_regs:FAIL:check_uprobe_res unexpected check_uprobe_res: actual 0 != expected 1
  torvalds#424     task_pt_regs:FAIL

due to progs/test_task_pt_regs.c using:

  #define PT_REGS_SIZE sizeof(struct pt_regs)

which is non-CORE and evaluates to wrong size in 64-bit BPF VM.

Workaround is using bpf_core_type_size() to limit the actual read but
leave the potentially larger PT_REGS_SIZE for the allocation.

Signed-off-by: Tony Ambardar <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants