diff mbox series

[bpf-next,v3,2/2] selftests/bpf: Add testcase where 7th argment is struct

Message ID 20240403072818.1462811-3-pulehui@huaweicloud.com (mailing list archive)
State Changes Requested
Delegated to: BPF
Headers show
Series Add 12-argument support for RV64 bpf trampoline | 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: 8 this patch: 8
netdev/build_tools success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/cc_maintainers warning 11 maintainers not CCed: alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com paul.walmsley@sifive.com linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com imagedong@tencent.com linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org yonghong.song@linux.dev shuah@kernel.org linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org mykolal@fb.com aou@eecs.berkeley.edu
netdev/build_clang success Errors and warnings before: 8 this patch: 8
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: 8 this patch: 8
netdev/checkpatch warning WARNING: line length of 81 exceeds 80 columns WARNING: line length of 83 exceeds 80 columns WARNING: line length of 87 exceeds 80 columns WARNING: line length of 92 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-1 success Logs for ShellCheck
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-PR success PR summary
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-0 success Logs for Lint
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-2 success Logs for Unittests
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-3 success Logs for Validate matrix.py
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-4 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / build / build for aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-5 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / build-release
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-7 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / test (test_progs, false, 360) / test_progs on aarch64 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-9 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / test (test_verifier, false, 360) / test_verifier 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-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-13 success Logs for s390x-gcc / test (test_maps, false, 360) / test_maps on s390x with gcc
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-VM_Test-14 success Logs for s390x-gcc / test (test_progs, false, 360) / test_progs on s390x with gcc
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-17 success Logs for s390x-gcc / veristat
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-20 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / build-release
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-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-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-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-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-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-27 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / veristat / veristat on x86_64 with gcc
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-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-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-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-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-34 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / veristat
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-35 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / build / build for x86_64 with llvm-18
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-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-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-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-42 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / veristat

Commit Message

Pu Lehui April 3, 2024, 7:28 a.m. UTC 
From: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>

Add testcase where 7th argument is struct for architectures with 8
argument registers, and increase the complexity of the struct.

Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
Acked-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn@rivosinc.com>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/DENYLIST.aarch64  |  1 +
 .../selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c   | 19 ++++++++++
 .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tracing_struct.c | 13 +++++++
 .../selftests/bpf/progs/tracing_struct.c      | 35 +++++++++++++++++++
 4 files changed, 68 insertions(+)

Comments

Daniel Borkmann April 3, 2024, 2:40 p.m. UTC | #1 
On 4/3/24 9:28 AM, Pu Lehui wrote:
> From: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
> 
> Add testcase where 7th argument is struct for architectures with 8
> argument registers, and increase the complexity of the struct.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
> Acked-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn@kernel.org>
> Reviewed-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn@rivosinc.com>
> ---
>   tools/testing/selftests/bpf/DENYLIST.aarch64  |  1 +
>   .../selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c   | 19 ++++++++++
>   .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tracing_struct.c | 13 +++++++
>   .../selftests/bpf/progs/tracing_struct.c      | 35 +++++++++++++++++++
>   4 files changed, 68 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/DENYLIST.aarch64 b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/DENYLIST.aarch64
> index d8ade15e2789..639ee3f5bc74 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/DENYLIST.aarch64
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/DENYLIST.aarch64
> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ kprobe_multi_test                                # needs CONFIG_FPROBE
>   module_attach                                    # prog 'kprobe_multi': failed to auto-attach: -95
>   fentry_test/fentry_many_args                     # fentry_many_args:FAIL:fentry_many_args_attach unexpected error: -524
>   fexit_test/fexit_many_args                       # fexit_many_args:FAIL:fexit_many_args_attach unexpected error: -524
> +tracing_struct                                   # test_fentry:FAIL:tracing_struct__attach unexpected error: -524

Do we need to blacklist the whole test given it had coverage on arm64
before.. perhaps this test here could be done as a new subtest and only
that one is listed for arm64?

>   fill_link_info/kprobe_multi_link_info            # bpf_program__attach_kprobe_multi_opts unexpected error: -95
>   fill_link_info/kretprobe_multi_link_info         # bpf_program__attach_kprobe_multi_opts unexpected error: -95
>   fill_link_info/kprobe_multi_invalid_ubuff        # bpf_program__attach_kprobe_multi_opts unexpected error: -95

Thanks,
Daniel
Pu Lehui April 3, 2024, 3:50 p.m. UTC | #2 
On 2024/4/3 22:40, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 4/3/24 9:28 AM, Pu Lehui wrote:
>> From: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
>>
>> Add testcase where 7th argument is struct for architectures with 8
>> argument registers, and increase the complexity of the struct.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
>> Acked-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn@kernel.org>
>> Reviewed-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn@rivosinc.com>
>> ---
>>   tools/testing/selftests/bpf/DENYLIST.aarch64  |  1 +
>>   .../selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c   | 19 ++++++++++
>>   .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tracing_struct.c | 13 +++++++
>>   .../selftests/bpf/progs/tracing_struct.c      | 35 +++++++++++++++++++
>>   4 files changed, 68 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/DENYLIST.aarch64 
>> b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/DENYLIST.aarch64
>> index d8ade15e2789..639ee3f5bc74 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/DENYLIST.aarch64
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/DENYLIST.aarch64
>> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ kprobe_multi_test                                # 
>> needs CONFIG_FPROBE
>>   module_attach                                    # prog 
>> 'kprobe_multi': failed to auto-attach: -95
>>   fentry_test/fentry_many_args                     # 
>> fentry_many_args:FAIL:fentry_many_args_attach unexpected error: -524
>>   fexit_test/fexit_many_args                       # 
>> fexit_many_args:FAIL:fexit_many_args_attach unexpected error: -524
>> +tracing_struct                                   # 
>> test_fentry:FAIL:tracing_struct__attach unexpected error: -524
> 
> Do we need to blacklist the whole test given it had coverage on arm64
> before.. perhaps this test here could be done as a new subtest and only
> that one is listed for arm64?

Yeah, I thought so at first, just like fexit_many_args of fentry/fexit, 
but I found that the things struct_tracing does are all in the same 
series, but the number or type of parameters are different, and the new 
use case I added is the same in this way. And I found that the execution 
logic of stract_tracing is relatively simple and clear, triggering all 
hook points, executing all bpf programs, and asserting all parameters.
Shall we need to slice them up?

> 
>>   fill_link_info/kprobe_multi_link_info            # 
>> bpf_program__attach_kprobe_multi_opts unexpected error: -95
>>   fill_link_info/kretprobe_multi_link_info         # 
>> bpf_program__attach_kprobe_multi_opts unexpected error: -95
>>   fill_link_info/kprobe_multi_invalid_ubuff        # 
>> bpf_program__attach_kprobe_multi_opts unexpected error: -95
> 
> Thanks,
> Daniel
Pu Lehui April 8, 2024, 1:58 p.m. UTC | #3 
On 2024/4/3 23:50, Pu Lehui wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2024/4/3 22:40, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> On 4/3/24 9:28 AM, Pu Lehui wrote:
>>> From: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
>>>
>>> Add testcase where 7th argument is struct for architectures with 8
>>> argument registers, and increase the complexity of the struct.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
>>> Acked-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn@kernel.org>
>>> Reviewed-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn@rivosinc.com>
>>> ---
>>>   tools/testing/selftests/bpf/DENYLIST.aarch64  |  1 +
>>>   .../selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c   | 19 ++++++++++
>>>   .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tracing_struct.c | 13 +++++++
>>>   .../selftests/bpf/progs/tracing_struct.c      | 35 +++++++++++++++++++
>>>   4 files changed, 68 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/DENYLIST.aarch64 
>>> b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/DENYLIST.aarch64
>>> index d8ade15e2789..639ee3f5bc74 100644
>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/DENYLIST.aarch64
>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/DENYLIST.aarch64
>>> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ kprobe_multi_test                                # 
>>> needs CONFIG_FPROBE
>>>   module_attach                                    # prog 
>>> 'kprobe_multi': failed to auto-attach: -95
>>>   fentry_test/fentry_many_args                     # 
>>> fentry_many_args:FAIL:fentry_many_args_attach unexpected error: -524
>>>   fexit_test/fexit_many_args                       # 
>>> fexit_many_args:FAIL:fexit_many_args_attach unexpected error: -524
>>> +tracing_struct                                   # 
>>> test_fentry:FAIL:tracing_struct__attach unexpected error: -524
>>
>> Do we need to blacklist the whole test given it had coverage on arm64
>> before.. perhaps this test here could be done as a new subtest and only
>> that one is listed for arm64?
> 
> Yeah, I thought so at first, just like fexit_many_args of fentry/fexit, 
> but I found that the things struct_tracing does are all in the same 
> series, but the number or type of parameters are different, and the new 
> use case I added is the same in this way. And I found that the execution 
> logic of stract_tracing is relatively simple and clear, triggering all 
> hook points, executing all bpf programs, and asserting all parameters.
> Shall we need to slice them up?

ping~ Daniel, shall we need to do that?

> 
>>
>>>   fill_link_info/kprobe_multi_link_info            # 
>>> bpf_program__attach_kprobe_multi_opts unexpected error: -95
>>>   fill_link_info/kretprobe_multi_link_info         # 
>>> bpf_program__attach_kprobe_multi_opts unexpected error: -95
>>>   fill_link_info/kprobe_multi_invalid_ubuff        # 
>>> bpf_program__attach_kprobe_multi_opts unexpected error: -95
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Daniel
>
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/DENYLIST.aarch64 b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/DENYLIST.aarch64
index d8ade15e2789..639ee3f5bc74 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/DENYLIST.aarch64
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/DENYLIST.aarch64
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@  kprobe_multi_test                                # needs CONFIG_FPROBE
 module_attach                                    # prog 'kprobe_multi': failed to auto-attach: -95
 fentry_test/fentry_many_args                     # fentry_many_args:FAIL:fentry_many_args_attach unexpected error: -524
 fexit_test/fexit_many_args                       # fexit_many_args:FAIL:fexit_many_args_attach unexpected error: -524
+tracing_struct                                   # test_fentry:FAIL:tracing_struct__attach unexpected error: -524
 fill_link_info/kprobe_multi_link_info            # bpf_program__attach_kprobe_multi_opts unexpected error: -95
 fill_link_info/kretprobe_multi_link_info         # bpf_program__attach_kprobe_multi_opts unexpected error: -95
 fill_link_info/kprobe_multi_invalid_ubuff        # bpf_program__attach_kprobe_multi_opts unexpected error: -95
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
index 39ad96a18123..4973d9de10af 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
@@ -41,6 +41,13 @@  struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_4 {
 	int b;
 };
 
+struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_5 {
+	char a;
+	short b;
+	int c;
+	long d;
+};
+
 __bpf_hook_start();
 
 noinline int
@@ -98,6 +105,15 @@  bpf_testmod_test_struct_arg_8(u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, void *e,
 	return bpf_testmod_test_struct_arg_result;
 }
 
+noinline int
+bpf_testmod_test_struct_arg_9(u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, void *e, char f,
+			      short g, struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_5 h, long i)
+{
+	bpf_testmod_test_struct_arg_result = a + (long)b + c + d + (long)e +
+		f + g + h.a + h.b + h.c + h.d + i;
+	return bpf_testmod_test_struct_arg_result;
+}
+
 noinline int
 bpf_testmod_test_arg_ptr_to_struct(struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_1 *a) {
 	bpf_testmod_test_struct_arg_result = a->a;
@@ -254,6 +270,7 @@  bpf_testmod_test_read(struct file *file, struct kobject *kobj,
 	struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_2 struct_arg2 = {2, 3};
 	struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_3 *struct_arg3;
 	struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_4 struct_arg4 = {21, 22};
+	struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_5 struct_arg5 = {23, 24, 25, 26};
 	int i = 1;
 
 	while (bpf_testmod_return_ptr(i))
@@ -268,6 +285,8 @@  bpf_testmod_test_read(struct file *file, struct kobject *kobj,
 					    (void *)20, struct_arg4);
 	(void)bpf_testmod_test_struct_arg_8(16, (void *)17, 18, 19,
 					    (void *)20, struct_arg4, 23);
+	(void)bpf_testmod_test_struct_arg_9(16, (void *)17, 18, 19, (void *)20,
+					    21, 22, struct_arg5, 27);
 
 	(void)bpf_testmod_test_arg_ptr_to_struct(&struct_arg1_2);
 
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tracing_struct.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tracing_struct.c
index fe0fb0c9849a..5a8eeb07a6ba 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tracing_struct.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tracing_struct.c
@@ -74,6 +74,19 @@  static void test_fentry(void)
 	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->t8_g, 23, "t8:g");
 	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->t8_ret, 156, "t8 ret");
 
+	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->t9_a, 16, "t9:a");
+	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->t9_b, 17, "t9:b");
+	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->t9_c, 18, "t9:c");
+	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->t9_d, 19, "t9:d");
+	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->t9_e, 20, "t9:e");
+	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->t9_f, 21, "t9:f");
+	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->t9_g, 22, "t9:f");
+	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->t9_h_a, 23, "t9:h.a");
+	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->t9_h_b, 24, "t9:h.b");
+	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->t9_h_c, 25, "t9:h.c");
+	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->t9_h_d, 26, "t9:h.d");
+	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->t9_i, 27, "t9:i");
+	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->t9_ret, 258, "t9 ret");
 	tracing_struct__detach(skel);
 destroy_skel:
 	tracing_struct__destroy(skel);
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tracing_struct.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tracing_struct.c
index 515daef3c84b..bfe96bab94c0 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tracing_struct.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tracing_struct.c
@@ -23,6 +23,13 @@  struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_4 {
 	int b;
 };
 
+struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_5 {
+	char a;
+	short b;
+	int c;
+	long d;
+};
+
 long t1_a_a, t1_a_b, t1_b, t1_c, t1_ret, t1_nregs;
 __u64 t1_reg0, t1_reg1, t1_reg2, t1_reg3;
 long t2_a, t2_b_a, t2_b_b, t2_c, t2_ret;
@@ -32,6 +39,7 @@  long t5_ret;
 int t6;
 long t7_a, t7_b, t7_c, t7_d, t7_e, t7_f_a, t7_f_b, t7_ret;
 long t8_a, t8_b, t8_c, t8_d, t8_e, t8_f_a, t8_f_b, t8_g, t8_ret;
+long t9_a, t9_b, t9_c, t9_d, t9_e, t9_f, t9_g, t9_h_a, t9_h_b, t9_h_c, t9_h_d, t9_i, t9_ret;
 
 
 SEC("fentry/bpf_testmod_test_struct_arg_1")
@@ -184,4 +192,31 @@  int BPF_PROG2(test_struct_arg_15, __u64, a, void *, b, short, c, int, d,
 	return 0;
 }
 
+SEC("fentry/bpf_testmod_test_struct_arg_9")
+int BPF_PROG2(test_struct_arg_16, __u64, a, void *, b, short, c, int, d, void *, e,
+	      char, f, short, g, struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_5, h, long, i)
+{
+	t9_a = a;
+	t9_b = (long)b;
+	t9_c = c;
+	t9_d = d;
+	t9_e = (long)e;
+	t9_f = f;
+	t9_g = g;
+	t9_h_a = h.a;
+	t9_h_b = h.b;
+	t9_h_c = h.c;
+	t9_h_d = h.d;
+	t9_i = i;
+	return 0;
+}
+
+SEC("fexit/bpf_testmod_test_struct_arg_9")
+int BPF_PROG2(test_struct_arg_17, __u64, a, void *, b, short, c, int, d, void *, e,
+	      char, f, short, g, struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_5, h, long, i, int, ret)
+{
+	t9_ret = ret;
+	return 0;
+}
+
 char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";