diff mbox series

[bpf-next,2/3] selftests/bpf: Add uretprobe syscall test for regs integrity

Message ID 20240327102036.543283-3-jolsa@kernel.org (mailing list archive)
State Superseded
Delegated to: BPF
Headers show
Series uprobe: uretprobe speed up | expand

Checks

Context Check Description
netdev/series_format success Posting correctly formatted
netdev/tree_selection success Clearly marked for bpf-next
netdev/ynl success Generated files up to date; no warnings/errors; no diff in generated;
netdev/fixes_present success Fixes tag not required for -next series
netdev/header_inline success No static functions without inline keyword in header files
netdev/build_32bit success Errors and warnings before: 954 this patch: 954
netdev/build_tools success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/cc_maintainers warning 12 maintainers not CCed: haoluo@google.com sdf@google.com kpsingh@kernel.org martin.lau@linux.dev yonghong.song@linux.dev shuah@kernel.org linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org mykolal@fb.com broonie@kernel.org song@kernel.org eddyz87@gmail.com liam.howlett@oracle.com
netdev/build_clang success Errors and warnings before: 1246 this patch: 1246
netdev/verify_signedoff success Signed-off-by tag matches author and committer
netdev/deprecated_api success None detected
netdev/check_selftest success No net selftest shell script
netdev/verify_fixes success No Fixes tag
netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn success Errors and warnings before: 4198 this patch: 4198
netdev/checkpatch warning CHECK: Lines should not end with a '(' CHECK: No space is necessary after a cast CHECK: spaces preferred around that '/' (ctx:VxV) WARNING: added, moved or deleted file(s), does MAINTAINERS need updating? WARNING: line length of 83 exceeds 80 columns WARNING: line length of 87 exceeds 80 columns WARNING: line length of 88 exceeds 80 columns WARNING: line length of 90 exceeds 80 columns
netdev/build_clang_rust success No Rust files in patch. Skipping build
netdev/kdoc success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/source_inline success Was 0 now: 0
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-3 success Logs for Validate matrix.py
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-5 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / build-release
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-0 success Logs for Lint
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-1 success Logs for ShellCheck
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-2 success Logs for Unittests
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-10 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / veristat
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-12 success Logs for s390x-gcc / build-release
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-4 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / build / build for aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-34 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / veristat
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-17 success Logs for s390x-gcc / veristat
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-35 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / build / build for x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-16 success Logs for s390x-gcc / test (test_verifier, false, 360) / test_verifier on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-20 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / build-release
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-28 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / build / build for x86_64 with llvm-17
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-6 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / test (test_maps, false, 360) / test_maps on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-11 success Logs for s390x-gcc / build / build for s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-18 success Logs for set-matrix
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-19 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / build / build for x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-9 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / test (test_verifier, false, 360) / test_verifier on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-29 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / build-release / build for x86_64 with llvm-17 and -O2 optimization
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-36 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / build-release / build for x86_64 with llvm-18 and -O2 optimization
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-42 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / veristat
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-32 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / test (test_progs_no_alu32, false, 360) / test_progs_no_alu32 on x86_64 with llvm-17
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-21 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_maps, false, 360) / test_maps on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-8 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / test (test_progs_no_alu32, false, 360) / test_progs_no_alu32 on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-13 success Logs for s390x-gcc / test (test_maps, false, 360) / test_maps on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-27 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / veristat / veristat on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-31 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / test (test_progs, false, 360) / test_progs on x86_64 with llvm-17
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-25 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_progs_parallel, true, 30) / test_progs_parallel on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-33 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / test (test_verifier, false, 360) / test_verifier on x86_64 with llvm-17
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-26 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_verifier, false, 360) / test_verifier on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-7 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / test (test_progs, false, 360) / test_progs on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-30 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / test (test_maps, false, 360) / test_maps on x86_64 with llvm-17
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-24 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_progs_no_alu32_parallel, true, 30) / test_progs_no_alu32_parallel on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-22 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_progs, false, 360) / test_progs on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-23 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_progs_no_alu32, false, 360) / test_progs_no_alu32 on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-37 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / test (test_maps, false, 360) / test_maps on x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-38 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / test (test_progs, false, 360) / test_progs on x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-39 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / test (test_progs_cpuv4, false, 360) / test_progs_cpuv4 on x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-40 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / test (test_progs_no_alu32, false, 360) / test_progs_no_alu32 on x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-41 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / test (test_verifier, false, 360) / test_verifier on x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-15 success Logs for s390x-gcc / test (test_progs_no_alu32, false, 360) / test_progs_no_alu32 on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-PR success PR summary
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-14 success Logs for s390x-gcc / test (test_progs, false, 360) / test_progs on s390x with gcc

Commit Message

Jiri Olsa March 27, 2024, 10:20 a.m. UTC 
Add uretprobe syscall test that compares register values before
and after the uretprobe is hit. It also compares the register
values seen from attached bpf program.

Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
---
 tools/include/linux/compiler.h                |   4 +
 .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c | 163 ++++++++++++++++++
 .../selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_syscall.c      |  15 ++
 3 files changed, 182 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c
 create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_syscall.c

Comments

Andrii Nakryiko March 29, 2024, 10:30 p.m. UTC | #1 
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 3:21 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Add uretprobe syscall test that compares register values before
> and after the uretprobe is hit. It also compares the register
> values seen from attached bpf program.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
> ---
>  tools/include/linux/compiler.h                |   4 +
>  .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c | 163 ++++++++++++++++++
>  .../selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_syscall.c      |  15 ++
>  3 files changed, 182 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c
>  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_syscall.c

[...]

> +__naked unsigned long uprobe_syscall_arch_test(void)
> +{
> +       asm volatile (
> +               "movq $0xdeadbeef, %rax\n"
> +               "ret\n"
> +       );
> +}
> +
> +__naked void uprobe_syscall_arch(struct pt_regs *before, struct pt_regs *after)

don't you get compiler warnings for using __naked with explicit
function arguments?

> +{
> +       asm volatile (
> +               "movq %r15,   0(%rdi)\n"
> +               "movq %r14,   8(%rdi)\n"

[...]

> +       err = uprobe_syscall__attach(skel);
> +       if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "uprobe_syscall__attach"))
> +               goto cleanup;
> +
> +       uprobe_syscall_arch(&before, &after);

uprobe_syscall_arch() doesn't really do an explicit `syscall
uretprobe`, it should work for int3-based uretprobes as well? Let's
call it something a bit more generic then?

Also, I think patch #1 will go through Masami's trace tree, right? But
we can land selftests into bpf-next even before that, given they
should work for both syscall and interrupt based uretprobes.

> +
> +       pp = (unsigned long *) &skel->bss->regs;
> +       cnt = sizeof(before)/sizeof(*pb);
> +

[...]
Andrii Nakryiko March 29, 2024, 10:34 p.m. UTC | #2 
On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 3:30 PM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 3:21 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Add uretprobe syscall test that compares register values before
> > and after the uretprobe is hit. It also compares the register
> > values seen from attached bpf program.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
> > ---
> >  tools/include/linux/compiler.h                |   4 +
> >  .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c | 163 ++++++++++++++++++
> >  .../selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_syscall.c      |  15 ++
> >  3 files changed, 182 insertions(+)
> >  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c
> >  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_syscall.c
>
> [...]
>
> > +__naked unsigned long uprobe_syscall_arch_test(void)
> > +{
> > +       asm volatile (
> > +               "movq $0xdeadbeef, %rax\n"
> > +               "ret\n"
> > +       );
> > +}
> > +
> > +__naked void uprobe_syscall_arch(struct pt_regs *before, struct pt_regs *after)
>
> don't you get compiler warnings for using __naked with explicit
> function arguments?
>
> > +{
> > +       asm volatile (
> > +               "movq %r15,   0(%rdi)\n"
> > +               "movq %r14,   8(%rdi)\n"
>
> [...]
>
> > +       err = uprobe_syscall__attach(skel);
> > +       if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "uprobe_syscall__attach"))
> > +               goto cleanup;
> > +
> > +       uprobe_syscall_arch(&before, &after);
>
> uprobe_syscall_arch() doesn't really do an explicit `syscall
> uretprobe`, it should work for int3-based uretprobes as well? Let's
> call it something a bit more generic then?
>
> Also, I think patch #1 will go through Masami's trace tree, right? But
> we can land selftests into bpf-next even before that, given they
> should work for both syscall and interrupt based uretprobes.

Regardless the decision:

Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>

>
> > +
> > +       pp = (unsigned long *) &skel->bss->regs;
> > +       cnt = sizeof(before)/sizeof(*pb);
> > +
>
> [...]
Jiri Olsa March 31, 2024, 7:37 p.m. UTC | #3 
On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 03:30:11PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 3:21 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Add uretprobe syscall test that compares register values before
> > and after the uretprobe is hit. It also compares the register
> > values seen from attached bpf program.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
> > ---
> >  tools/include/linux/compiler.h                |   4 +
> >  .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c | 163 ++++++++++++++++++
> >  .../selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_syscall.c      |  15 ++
> >  3 files changed, 182 insertions(+)
> >  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c
> >  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_syscall.c
> 
> [...]
> 
> > +__naked unsigned long uprobe_syscall_arch_test(void)
> > +{
> > +       asm volatile (
> > +               "movq $0xdeadbeef, %rax\n"
> > +               "ret\n"
> > +       );
> > +}
> > +
> > +__naked void uprobe_syscall_arch(struct pt_regs *before, struct pt_regs *after)
> 
> don't you get compiler warnings for using __naked with explicit
> function arguments?

nope, both gcc and clang are silent

> 
> > +{
> > +       asm volatile (
> > +               "movq %r15,   0(%rdi)\n"
> > +               "movq %r14,   8(%rdi)\n"
> 
> [...]
> 
> > +       err = uprobe_syscall__attach(skel);
> > +       if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "uprobe_syscall__attach"))
> > +               goto cleanup;
> > +
> > +       uprobe_syscall_arch(&before, &after);
> 
> uprobe_syscall_arch() doesn't really do an explicit `syscall
> uretprobe`, it should work for int3-based uretprobes as well? Let's
> call it something a bit more generic then?

ok, how about

  uprobe_syscall_arch -> uretprobe_regs
  uprobe_syscall_arch_test -> uretprobe_regs_trigger

> 
> Also, I think patch #1 will go through Masami's trace tree, right? But
> we can land selftests into bpf-next even before that, given they
> should work for both syscall and interrupt based uretprobes.

hm, not sure.. I did not originally cc Masami/Steven :-\  adding now

Masami, could patch 1 go through:

  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/trace/linux-trace.git
  probes/for-next

thanks,
jirka
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) April 1, 2024, 9:47 a.m. UTC | #4 
Hi Jiri,

On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 21:37:03 +0200
Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 03:30:11PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 3:21 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Add uretprobe syscall test that compares register values before
> > > and after the uretprobe is hit. It also compares the register
> > > values seen from attached bpf program.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
> > > ---
> > >  tools/include/linux/compiler.h                |   4 +
> > >  .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c | 163 ++++++++++++++++++
> > >  .../selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_syscall.c      |  15 ++
> > >  3 files changed, 182 insertions(+)
> > >  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c
> > >  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_syscall.c
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > > +__naked unsigned long uprobe_syscall_arch_test(void)
> > > +{
> > > +       asm volatile (
> > > +               "movq $0xdeadbeef, %rax\n"
> > > +               "ret\n"
> > > +       );
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +__naked void uprobe_syscall_arch(struct pt_regs *before, struct pt_regs *after)
> > 
> > don't you get compiler warnings for using __naked with explicit
> > function arguments?
> 
> nope, both gcc and clang are silent
> 
> > 
> > > +{
> > > +       asm volatile (
> > > +               "movq %r15,   0(%rdi)\n"
> > > +               "movq %r14,   8(%rdi)\n"
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > > +       err = uprobe_syscall__attach(skel);
> > > +       if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "uprobe_syscall__attach"))
> > > +               goto cleanup;
> > > +
> > > +       uprobe_syscall_arch(&before, &after);
> > 
> > uprobe_syscall_arch() doesn't really do an explicit `syscall
> > uretprobe`, it should work for int3-based uretprobes as well? Let's
> > call it something a bit more generic then?
> 
> ok, how about
> 
>   uprobe_syscall_arch -> uretprobe_regs
>   uprobe_syscall_arch_test -> uretprobe_regs_trigger
> 
> > 
> > Also, I think patch #1 will go through Masami's trace tree, right? But
> > we can land selftests into bpf-next even before that, given they
> > should work for both syscall and interrupt based uretprobes.
> 
> hm, not sure.. I did not originally cc Masami/Steven :-\  adding now

Would you mean this patch?

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240327102036.543283-2-jolsa@kernel.org/

It seems you don't Cc/To me nor linux-kernel-trace ML.

> 
> Masami, could patch 1 go through:
> 
>   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/trace/linux-trace.git
>   probes/for-next

Could you resend it to linux-kernel-trace ML?  (only the first one?)

Thank you,

> 
> thanks,
> jirka
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/tools/include/linux/compiler.h b/tools/include/linux/compiler.h
index 8a63a9913495..6f7f22ac9da5 100644
--- a/tools/include/linux/compiler.h
+++ b/tools/include/linux/compiler.h
@@ -62,6 +62,10 @@ 
 #define __nocf_check __attribute__((nocf_check))
 #endif
 
+#ifndef __naked
+#define __naked __attribute__((__naked__))
+#endif
+
 /* Are two types/vars the same type (ignoring qualifiers)? */
 #ifndef __same_type
 # define __same_type(a, b) __builtin_types_compatible_p(typeof(a), typeof(b))
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..14b1cf7a53b4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_syscall.c
@@ -0,0 +1,163 @@ 
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+#include <test_progs.h>
+
+#ifdef __x86_64__
+
+#include <unistd.h>
+#include <asm/ptrace.h>
+#include <linux/compiler.h>
+#include "uprobe_syscall.skel.h"
+
+__naked unsigned long uprobe_syscall_arch_test(void)
+{
+	asm volatile (
+		"movq $0xdeadbeef, %rax\n"
+		"ret\n"
+	);
+}
+
+__naked void uprobe_syscall_arch(struct pt_regs *before, struct pt_regs *after)
+{
+	asm volatile (
+		"movq %r15,   0(%rdi)\n"
+		"movq %r14,   8(%rdi)\n"
+		"movq %r13,  16(%rdi)\n"
+		"movq %r12,  24(%rdi)\n"
+		"movq %rbp,  32(%rdi)\n"
+		"movq %rbx,  40(%rdi)\n"
+		"movq %r11,  48(%rdi)\n"
+		"movq %r10,  56(%rdi)\n"
+		"movq  %r9,  64(%rdi)\n"
+		"movq  %r8,  72(%rdi)\n"
+		"movq %rax,  80(%rdi)\n"
+		"movq %rcx,  88(%rdi)\n"
+		"movq %rdx,  96(%rdi)\n"
+		"movq %rsi, 104(%rdi)\n"
+		"movq %rdi, 112(%rdi)\n"
+		"movq   $0, 120(%rdi)\n" /* orig_rax */
+		"movq   $0, 128(%rdi)\n" /* rip      */
+		"movq   $0, 136(%rdi)\n" /* cs       */
+		"pushf\n"
+		"pop %rax\n"
+		"movq %rax, 144(%rdi)\n" /* eflags   */
+		"movq %rsp, 152(%rdi)\n" /* rsp      */
+		"movq   $0, 160(%rdi)\n" /* ss       */
+
+		/* save 2nd argument */
+		"pushq %rsi\n"
+		"call uprobe_syscall_arch_test\n"
+
+		/* save  return value and load 2nd argument pointer to rax */
+		"pushq %rax\n"
+		"movq 8(%rsp), %rax\n"
+
+		"movq %r15,   0(%rax)\n"
+		"movq %r14,   8(%rax)\n"
+		"movq %r13,  16(%rax)\n"
+		"movq %r12,  24(%rax)\n"
+		"movq %rbp,  32(%rax)\n"
+		"movq %rbx,  40(%rax)\n"
+		"movq %r11,  48(%rax)\n"
+		"movq %r10,  56(%rax)\n"
+		"movq  %r9,  64(%rax)\n"
+		"movq  %r8,  72(%rax)\n"
+		"movq %rcx,  88(%rax)\n"
+		"movq %rdx,  96(%rax)\n"
+		"movq %rsi, 104(%rax)\n"
+		"movq %rdi, 112(%rax)\n"
+		"movq   $0, 120(%rax)\n" /* orig_rax */
+		"movq   $0, 128(%rax)\n" /* rip      */
+		"movq   $0, 136(%rax)\n" /* cs       */
+
+		/* restore return value and 2nd argument */
+		"pop %rax\n"
+		"pop %rsi\n"
+
+		"movq %rax,  80(%rsi)\n"
+
+		"pushf\n"
+		"pop %rax\n"
+
+		"movq %rax, 144(%rsi)\n" /* eflags   */
+		"movq %rsp, 152(%rsi)\n" /* rsp      */
+		"movq   $0, 160(%rsi)\n" /* ss       */
+		"ret\n"
+);
+}
+
+static void test_uretprobe_regs_equal(void)
+{
+	struct uprobe_syscall *skel = NULL;
+	struct pt_regs before = {}, after = {};
+	unsigned long *pb = (unsigned long *) &before;
+	unsigned long *pa = (unsigned long *) &after;
+	unsigned long *pp;
+	unsigned int i, cnt;
+	int err;
+
+	skel = uprobe_syscall__open_and_load();
+	if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "uprobe_syscall__open_and_load"))
+		goto cleanup;
+
+	err = uprobe_syscall__attach(skel);
+	if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "uprobe_syscall__attach"))
+		goto cleanup;
+
+	uprobe_syscall_arch(&before, &after);
+
+	pp = (unsigned long *) &skel->bss->regs;
+	cnt = sizeof(before)/sizeof(*pb);
+
+	for (i = 0; i < cnt; i++) {
+		unsigned int offset = i * sizeof(unsigned long);
+
+		/*
+		 * Check register before and after uprobe_syscall_arch_test call
+		 * that triggers the uretprobe.
+		 */
+		switch (offset) {
+		case offsetof(struct pt_regs, rax):
+			ASSERT_EQ(pa[i], 0xdeadbeef, "return value");
+			break;
+		default:
+			if (!ASSERT_EQ(pb[i], pa[i], "register before-after value check"))
+				fprintf(stdout, "failed register offset %u\n", offset);
+		}
+
+		/*
+		 * Check register seen from bpf program and register after
+		 * uprobe_syscall_arch_test call
+		 */
+		switch (offset) {
+		/*
+		 * These values will be different (not set in uprobe_syscall_arch),
+		 * we don't care.
+		 */
+		case offsetof(struct pt_regs, orig_rax):
+		case offsetof(struct pt_regs, rip):
+		case offsetof(struct pt_regs, cs):
+		case offsetof(struct pt_regs, rsp):
+		case offsetof(struct pt_regs, ss):
+			break;
+		default:
+			if (!ASSERT_EQ(pp[i], pa[i], "register prog-after value check"))
+				fprintf(stdout, "failed register offset %u\n", offset);
+		}
+	}
+
+cleanup:
+	uprobe_syscall__destroy(skel);
+}
+#else
+static void test_uretprobe_regs_equal(void)
+{
+	test__skip();
+}
+#endif
+
+void test_uprobe_syscall(void)
+{
+	if (test__start_subtest("uretprobe_regs_equal"))
+		test_uretprobe_regs_equal();
+}
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_syscall.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_syscall.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..3b7e0a63f659
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_syscall.c
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ 
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+#include "vmlinux.h"
+#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
+#include <string.h>
+
+struct pt_regs regs;
+
+char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
+
+SEC("uretprobe//proc/self/exe:uprobe_syscall_arch_test")
+int uretprobe(struct pt_regs *ctx)
+{
+	__builtin_memcpy(&regs, ctx, sizeof(regs));
+	return 0;
+}