diff mbox series

[v4,bpf-next,6/9] selftests/bpf: Test gen_prologue and gen_epilogue

Message ID 20240827194834.1423815-7-martin.lau@linux.dev (mailing list archive)
State Superseded
Delegated to: BPF
Headers show
Series bpf: Add gen_epilogue to bpf_verifier_ops | expand

Checks

Context Check Description
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-6 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / test
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-3 success Logs for Validate matrix.py
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-4 fail Logs for aarch64-gcc / build / build for aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-8 fail Logs for s390x-gcc / build / build for s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-5 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / build-release
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-7 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / veristat
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-0 success Logs for Lint
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-9 success Logs for s390x-gcc / build-release
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-10 success Logs for s390x-gcc / test
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-11 success Logs for s390x-gcc / veristat
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-12 success Logs for set-matrix
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-14 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / build-release
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-13 fail Logs for x86_64-gcc / build / build for x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-15 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-16 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / veristat
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-17 fail Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / build / build for x86_64 with llvm-17
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-18 fail Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / build-release / build for x86_64 with llvm-17-O2
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-20 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / veristat
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-21 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / build / build for x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-22 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / build-release / build for x86_64 with llvm-18-O2
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-19 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / test
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-28 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / veristat
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-PR fail PR summary
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-23 fail 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-24 fail 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-25 fail 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-26 fail 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-27 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / test (test_verifier, false, 360) / test_verifier on x86_64 with llvm-18
netdev/series_format success Posting correctly formatted
netdev/tree_selection success Clearly marked for bpf-next, async
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: 16 this patch: 16
netdev/build_tools success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/cc_maintainers warning 15 maintainers not CCed: mykolal@fb.com sdf@fomichev.me haoluo@google.com shuah@kernel.org linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org jolsa@kernel.org thinker.li@gmail.com linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org jrife@google.com kpsingh@kernel.org song@kernel.org alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com john.fastabend@gmail.com
netdev/build_clang success Errors and warnings before: 17 this patch: 17
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: 22 this patch: 22
netdev/checkpatch warning CHECK: Lines should not end with a '(' WARNING: added, moved or deleted file(s), does MAINTAINERS need updating? WARNING: line length of 82 exceeds 80 columns WARNING: line length of 86 exceeds 80 columns WARNING: line length of 92 exceeds 80 columns WARNING: line length of 96 exceeds 80 columns WARNING: line length of 97 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

Commit Message

Martin KaFai Lau Aug. 27, 2024, 7:48 p.m. UTC
From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>

This test adds a new struct_ops "bpf_testmod_st_ops" in bpf_testmod.
The ops of the bpf_testmod_st_ops is triggered by new kfunc calls
"bpf_kfunc_st_ops_test_*logue". These new kfunc calls are
primarily used by the SEC("syscall") program. The test triggering
sequence is like:
    SEC("syscall")
    syscall_prologue_subprog(struct st_ops_args *args)
        bpf_kfunc_st_op_test_prologue(args)
	    st_ops->test_prologue(args)

.gen_prologue adds 1000 to args->a
.gen_epilogue adds 10000 to args->a
.gen_epilogue will also set the r0 to 2 * args->a.

The .gen_prologue and .gen_epilogue of the bpf_testmod_st_ops
will test the prog->aux->attach_func_name to decide if
it needs to generate codes.

The main programs of the pro_epilogue_subprog.c will call a subprog()
which does "args->a += 1".

The main programs of the pro_epilogue_kfunc.c will call a
new kfunc bpf_kfunc_st_ops_inc10 which does "args->a += 10".

This patch uses the test_loader infra to check the __xlated
instructions patched after gen_prologue and/or gen_epilogue.
The __xlated check is based on Eduard's example (Thanks!) in v1.

args->a is returned by the struct_ops prog (either the main prog
or the epilogue). Thus, the __retval of the SEC("syscall") prog
is checked. For example, when triggering the ops in the
'SEC("struct_ops/test_epilogue_subprog") int test_epilogue_subprog'
The expected args->a is +1 (subprog call) + 10000 (.gen_epilogue) = 10001.
The expected return value is 2 * 10001 (.gen_epilogue).

Suggested-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>
---
 .../selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c   | 190 ++++++++++++++++++
 .../selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h   |  11 +
 .../bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod_kfunc.h       |   6 +
 .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/pro_epilogue.c   |  12 ++
 .../selftests/bpf/progs/pro_epilogue_kfunc.c  | 156 ++++++++++++++
 .../bpf/progs/pro_epilogue_subprog.c          | 125 ++++++++++++
 6 files changed, 500 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/pro_epilogue.c
 create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/pro_epilogue_kfunc.c
 create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/pro_epilogue_subprog.c

Comments

Eduard Zingerman Aug. 29, 2024, 7:27 a.m. UTC | #1
On Tue, 2024-08-27 at 12:48 -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>
> 
> This test adds a new struct_ops "bpf_testmod_st_ops" in bpf_testmod.
> The ops of the bpf_testmod_st_ops is triggered by new kfunc calls
> "bpf_kfunc_st_ops_test_*logue". These new kfunc calls are
> primarily used by the SEC("syscall") program. The test triggering
> sequence is like:
>     SEC("syscall")
>     syscall_prologue_subprog(struct st_ops_args *args)
>         bpf_kfunc_st_op_test_prologue(args)
> 	    st_ops->test_prologue(args)
> 
> .gen_prologue adds 1000 to args->a
> .gen_epilogue adds 10000 to args->a
> .gen_epilogue will also set the r0 to 2 * args->a.
> 
> The .gen_prologue and .gen_epilogue of the bpf_testmod_st_ops
> will test the prog->aux->attach_func_name to decide if
> it needs to generate codes.
> 
> The main programs of the pro_epilogue_subprog.c will call a subprog()
> which does "args->a += 1".
> 
> The main programs of the pro_epilogue_kfunc.c will call a
> new kfunc bpf_kfunc_st_ops_inc10 which does "args->a += 10".
> 
> This patch uses the test_loader infra to check the __xlated
> instructions patched after gen_prologue and/or gen_epilogue.
> The __xlated check is based on Eduard's example (Thanks!) in v1.
> 
> args->a is returned by the struct_ops prog (either the main prog
> or the epilogue). Thus, the __retval of the SEC("syscall") prog
> is checked. For example, when triggering the ops in the
> 'SEC("struct_ops/test_epilogue_subprog") int test_epilogue_subprog'
> The expected args->a is +1 (subprog call) + 10000 (.gen_epilogue) = 10001.
> The expected return value is 2 * 10001 (.gen_epilogue).
> 
> Suggested-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>
> ---

Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>

[...]

> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/pro_epilogue_kfunc.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/pro_epilogue_kfunc.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..7d1124cf4942
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/pro_epilogue_kfunc.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,156 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +/* Copyright (c) 2024 Meta Platforms, Inc. and affiliates. */
> +
> +#include <vmlinux.h>
> +#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
> +#include "bpf_misc.h"
> +#include "../bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h"
> +#include "../bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod_kfunc.h"
> +
> +char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
> +
> +void __kfunc_btf_root(void)
> +{
> +	struct st_ops_args args = {};
> +
> +	bpf_kfunc_st_ops_inc10(&args);

Nit: 'bpf_kfunc_st_ops_inc10(0);' would also work.

> +}

As a side note, I think that kfunc and subprog sets of tests could be
combined in order to have less code. Probably does not matter.

[...]
Martin KaFai Lau Aug. 29, 2024, 5:35 p.m. UTC | #2
On 8/29/24 12:27 AM, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> On Tue, 2024-08-27 at 12:48 -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
>> From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>
>>
>> This test adds a new struct_ops "bpf_testmod_st_ops" in bpf_testmod.
>> The ops of the bpf_testmod_st_ops is triggered by new kfunc calls
>> "bpf_kfunc_st_ops_test_*logue". These new kfunc calls are
>> primarily used by the SEC("syscall") program. The test triggering
>> sequence is like:
>>      SEC("syscall")
>>      syscall_prologue_subprog(struct st_ops_args *args)
>>          bpf_kfunc_st_op_test_prologue(args)
>> 	    st_ops->test_prologue(args)
>>
>> .gen_prologue adds 1000 to args->a
>> .gen_epilogue adds 10000 to args->a
>> .gen_epilogue will also set the r0 to 2 * args->a.
>>
>> The .gen_prologue and .gen_epilogue of the bpf_testmod_st_ops
>> will test the prog->aux->attach_func_name to decide if
>> it needs to generate codes.
>>
>> The main programs of the pro_epilogue_subprog.c will call a subprog()
>> which does "args->a += 1".
>>
>> The main programs of the pro_epilogue_kfunc.c will call a
>> new kfunc bpf_kfunc_st_ops_inc10 which does "args->a += 10".
>>
>> This patch uses the test_loader infra to check the __xlated
>> instructions patched after gen_prologue and/or gen_epilogue.
>> The __xlated check is based on Eduard's example (Thanks!) in v1.
>>
>> args->a is returned by the struct_ops prog (either the main prog
>> or the epilogue). Thus, the __retval of the SEC("syscall") prog
>> is checked. For example, when triggering the ops in the
>> 'SEC("struct_ops/test_epilogue_subprog") int test_epilogue_subprog'
>> The expected args->a is +1 (subprog call) + 10000 (.gen_epilogue) = 10001.
>> The expected return value is 2 * 10001 (.gen_epilogue).
>>
>> Suggested-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>
>> ---
> 
> Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
> 
> [...]
> 
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/pro_epilogue_kfunc.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/pro_epilogue_kfunc.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..7d1124cf4942
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/pro_epilogue_kfunc.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,156 @@
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>> +/* Copyright (c) 2024 Meta Platforms, Inc. and affiliates. */
>> +
>> +#include <vmlinux.h>
>> +#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
>> +#include "bpf_misc.h"
>> +#include "../bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h"
>> +#include "../bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod_kfunc.h"
>> +
>> +char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
>> +
>> +void __kfunc_btf_root(void)
>> +{
>> +	struct st_ops_args args = {};
>> +
>> +	bpf_kfunc_st_ops_inc10(&args);
> 
> Nit: 'bpf_kfunc_st_ops_inc10(0);' would also work.

sgtm. I think it will make it obvious that it won't be executed also.

> 
>> +}
> 
> As a side note, I think that kfunc and subprog sets of tests could be
> combined in order to have less code. Probably does not matter.

ok. I will drop the _subprog.c and only keep the _kfunc.c.

The _kfunc.c calls a subprog and a kfunc which should have already covered the 
_subprog.c cases.
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
index c04b7dec2ab9..b8b6989d596a 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
@@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ 
 #include <linux/in.h>
 #include <linux/in6.h>
 #include <linux/un.h>
+#include <linux/filter.h>
 #include <net/sock.h>
 #include <linux/namei.h>
 #include "bpf_testmod.h"
@@ -928,6 +929,51 @@  __bpf_kfunc int bpf_kfunc_call_kernel_getpeername(struct addr_args *args)
 	return err;
 }
 
+static DEFINE_MUTEX(st_ops_mutex);
+static struct bpf_testmod_st_ops *st_ops;
+
+__bpf_kfunc int bpf_kfunc_st_ops_test_prologue(struct st_ops_args *args)
+{
+	int ret = -1;
+
+	mutex_lock(&st_ops_mutex);
+	if (st_ops && st_ops->test_prologue)
+		ret = st_ops->test_prologue(args);
+	mutex_unlock(&st_ops_mutex);
+
+	return ret;
+}
+
+__bpf_kfunc int bpf_kfunc_st_ops_test_epilogue(struct st_ops_args *args)
+{
+	int ret = -1;
+
+	mutex_lock(&st_ops_mutex);
+	if (st_ops && st_ops->test_epilogue)
+		ret = st_ops->test_epilogue(args);
+	mutex_unlock(&st_ops_mutex);
+
+	return ret;
+}
+
+__bpf_kfunc int bpf_kfunc_st_ops_test_pro_epilogue(struct st_ops_args *args)
+{
+	int ret = -1;
+
+	mutex_lock(&st_ops_mutex);
+	if (st_ops && st_ops->test_pro_epilogue)
+		ret = st_ops->test_pro_epilogue(args);
+	mutex_unlock(&st_ops_mutex);
+
+	return ret;
+}
+
+__bpf_kfunc int bpf_kfunc_st_ops_inc10(struct st_ops_args *args)
+{
+	args->a += 10;
+	return args->a;
+}
+
 BTF_KFUNCS_START(bpf_testmod_check_kfunc_ids)
 BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_testmod_test_mod_kfunc)
 BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test1)
@@ -964,6 +1010,10 @@  BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_kfunc_call_kernel_sendmsg, KF_SLEEPABLE)
 BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_kfunc_call_sock_sendmsg, KF_SLEEPABLE)
 BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_kfunc_call_kernel_getsockname, KF_SLEEPABLE)
 BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_kfunc_call_kernel_getpeername, KF_SLEEPABLE)
+BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_kfunc_st_ops_test_prologue, KF_TRUSTED_ARGS | KF_SLEEPABLE)
+BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_kfunc_st_ops_test_epilogue, KF_TRUSTED_ARGS | KF_SLEEPABLE)
+BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_kfunc_st_ops_test_pro_epilogue, KF_TRUSTED_ARGS | KF_SLEEPABLE)
+BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_kfunc_st_ops_inc10, KF_TRUSTED_ARGS)
 BTF_KFUNCS_END(bpf_testmod_check_kfunc_ids)
 
 static int bpf_testmod_ops_init(struct btf *btf)
@@ -1083,6 +1133,144 @@  struct bpf_struct_ops bpf_testmod_ops2 = {
 	.owner = THIS_MODULE,
 };
 
+static int bpf_test_mod_st_ops__test_prologue(struct st_ops_args *args)
+{
+	return 0;
+}
+
+static int bpf_test_mod_st_ops__test_epilogue(struct st_ops_args *args)
+{
+	return 0;
+}
+
+static int bpf_test_mod_st_ops__test_pro_epilogue(struct st_ops_args *args)
+{
+	return 0;
+}
+
+static int st_ops_gen_prologue(struct bpf_insn *insn_buf, bool direct_write,
+			       const struct bpf_prog *prog)
+{
+	struct bpf_insn *insn = insn_buf;
+
+	if (strcmp(prog->aux->attach_func_name, "test_prologue") &&
+	    strcmp(prog->aux->attach_func_name, "test_pro_epilogue"))
+		return 0;
+
+	/* r6 = r1[0]; // r6 will be "struct st_ops *args". r1 is "u64 *ctx".
+	 * r7 = r6->a;
+	 * r7 += 1000;
+	 * r6->a = r7;
+	 */
+	*insn++ = BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_1, 0);
+	*insn++ = BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_7, BPF_REG_6, offsetof(struct st_ops_args, a));
+	*insn++ = BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_7, 1000);
+	*insn++ = BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_7, offsetof(struct st_ops_args, a));
+	*insn++ = prog->insnsi[0];
+
+	return insn - insn_buf;
+}
+
+static int st_ops_gen_epilogue(struct bpf_insn *insn_buf, const struct bpf_prog *prog,
+			       s16 ctx_stack_off)
+{
+	struct bpf_insn *insn = insn_buf;
+
+	if (strcmp(prog->aux->attach_func_name, "test_epilogue") &&
+	    strcmp(prog->aux->attach_func_name, "test_pro_epilogue"))
+		return 0;
+
+	/* r1 = stack[ctx_stack_off]; // r1 will be "u64 *ctx"
+	 * r1 = r1[0]; // r1 will be "struct st_ops *args"
+	 * r6 = r1->a;
+	 * r6 += 10000;
+	 * r1->a = r6;
+	 * r0 = r6;
+	 * r0 *= 2;
+	 * BPF_EXIT;
+	 */
+	*insn++ = BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_FP, ctx_stack_off);
+	*insn++ = BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_1, 0);
+	*insn++ = BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_1, offsetof(struct st_ops_args, a));
+	*insn++ = BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_6, 10000);
+	*insn++ = BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_6, offsetof(struct st_ops_args, a));
+	*insn++ = BPF_MOV32_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_6);
+	*insn++ = BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_MUL, BPF_REG_0, 2);
+	*insn++ = BPF_EXIT_INSN();
+
+	return insn - insn_buf;
+}
+
+static int st_ops_btf_struct_access(struct bpf_verifier_log *log,
+				    const struct bpf_reg_state *reg,
+				    int off, int size)
+{
+	if (off < 0 || off + size > sizeof(struct st_ops_args))
+		return -EACCES;
+	return 0;
+}
+
+static const struct bpf_verifier_ops st_ops_verifier_ops = {
+	.is_valid_access = bpf_testmod_ops_is_valid_access,
+	.btf_struct_access = st_ops_btf_struct_access,
+	.gen_prologue = st_ops_gen_prologue,
+	.gen_epilogue = st_ops_gen_epilogue,
+	.get_func_proto = bpf_base_func_proto,
+};
+
+static struct bpf_testmod_st_ops st_ops_cfi_stubs = {
+	.test_prologue = bpf_test_mod_st_ops__test_prologue,
+	.test_epilogue = bpf_test_mod_st_ops__test_epilogue,
+	.test_pro_epilogue = bpf_test_mod_st_ops__test_pro_epilogue,
+};
+
+static int st_ops_reg(void *kdata, struct bpf_link *link)
+{
+	int err = 0;
+
+	mutex_lock(&st_ops_mutex);
+	if (st_ops) {
+		pr_err("st_ops has already been registered\n");
+		err = -EEXIST;
+		goto unlock;
+	}
+	st_ops = kdata;
+
+unlock:
+	mutex_unlock(&st_ops_mutex);
+	return err;
+}
+
+static void st_ops_unreg(void *kdata, struct bpf_link *link)
+{
+	mutex_lock(&st_ops_mutex);
+	st_ops = NULL;
+	mutex_unlock(&st_ops_mutex);
+}
+
+static int st_ops_init(struct btf *btf)
+{
+	return 0;
+}
+
+static int st_ops_init_member(const struct btf_type *t,
+			      const struct btf_member *member,
+			      void *kdata, const void *udata)
+{
+	return 0;
+}
+
+static struct bpf_struct_ops testmod_st_ops = {
+	.verifier_ops = &st_ops_verifier_ops,
+	.init = st_ops_init,
+	.init_member = st_ops_init_member,
+	.reg = st_ops_reg,
+	.unreg = st_ops_unreg,
+	.cfi_stubs = &st_ops_cfi_stubs,
+	.name = "bpf_testmod_st_ops",
+	.owner = THIS_MODULE,
+};
+
 extern int bpf_fentry_test1(int a);
 
 static int bpf_testmod_init(void)
@@ -1100,8 +1288,10 @@  static int bpf_testmod_init(void)
 	ret = ret ?: register_btf_kfunc_id_set(BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS, &bpf_testmod_kfunc_set);
 	ret = ret ?: register_btf_kfunc_id_set(BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING, &bpf_testmod_kfunc_set);
 	ret = ret ?: register_btf_kfunc_id_set(BPF_PROG_TYPE_SYSCALL, &bpf_testmod_kfunc_set);
+	ret = ret ?: register_btf_kfunc_id_set(BPF_PROG_TYPE_STRUCT_OPS, &bpf_testmod_kfunc_set);
 	ret = ret ?: register_bpf_struct_ops(&bpf_bpf_testmod_ops, bpf_testmod_ops);
 	ret = ret ?: register_bpf_struct_ops(&bpf_testmod_ops2, bpf_testmod_ops2);
+	ret = ret ?: register_bpf_struct_ops(&testmod_st_ops, bpf_testmod_st_ops);
 	ret = ret ?: register_btf_id_dtor_kfuncs(bpf_testmod_dtors,
 						 ARRAY_SIZE(bpf_testmod_dtors),
 						 THIS_MODULE);
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h
index fe0d402b0d65..3241a9d796ed 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h
@@ -94,4 +94,15 @@  struct bpf_testmod_ops2 {
 	int (*test_1)(void);
 };
 
+struct st_ops_args {
+	int a;
+};
+
+struct bpf_testmod_st_ops {
+	int (*test_prologue)(struct st_ops_args *args);
+	int (*test_epilogue)(struct st_ops_args *args);
+	int (*test_pro_epilogue)(struct st_ops_args *args);
+	struct module *owner;
+};
+
 #endif /* _BPF_TESTMOD_H */
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod_kfunc.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod_kfunc.h
index e587a79f2239..0df429a0edaa 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod_kfunc.h
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod_kfunc.h
@@ -144,4 +144,10 @@  void bpf_kfunc_dynptr_test(struct bpf_dynptr *ptr, struct bpf_dynptr *ptr__nulla
 struct bpf_testmod_ctx *bpf_testmod_ctx_create(int *err) __ksym;
 void bpf_testmod_ctx_release(struct bpf_testmod_ctx *ctx) __ksym;
 
+struct st_ops_args;
+int bpf_kfunc_st_ops_test_prologue(struct st_ops_args *args) __ksym;
+int bpf_kfunc_st_ops_test_epilogue(struct st_ops_args *args) __ksym;
+int bpf_kfunc_st_ops_test_pro_epilogue(struct st_ops_args *args) __ksym;
+int bpf_kfunc_st_ops_inc10(struct st_ops_args *args) __ksym;
+
 #endif /* _BPF_TESTMOD_KFUNC_H */
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/pro_epilogue.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/pro_epilogue.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..69e4a5a1756d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/pro_epilogue.c
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@ 
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
+/* Copyright (c) 2024 Meta Platforms, Inc. and affiliates. */
+
+#include <test_progs.h>
+#include "pro_epilogue_subprog.skel.h"
+#include "pro_epilogue_kfunc.skel.h"
+
+void test_pro_epilogue(void)
+{
+	RUN_TESTS(pro_epilogue_subprog);
+	RUN_TESTS(pro_epilogue_kfunc);
+}
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/pro_epilogue_kfunc.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/pro_epilogue_kfunc.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..7d1124cf4942
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/pro_epilogue_kfunc.c
@@ -0,0 +1,156 @@ 
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+/* Copyright (c) 2024 Meta Platforms, Inc. and affiliates. */
+
+#include <vmlinux.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
+#include "bpf_misc.h"
+#include "../bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h"
+#include "../bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod_kfunc.h"
+
+char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
+
+void __kfunc_btf_root(void)
+{
+	struct st_ops_args args = {};
+
+	bpf_kfunc_st_ops_inc10(&args);
+}
+
+static __noinline __used int subprog(struct st_ops_args *args)
+{
+	args->a += 1;
+	return args->a;
+}
+
+__success
+/* prologue */
+__xlated("0: r6 = *(u64 *)(r1 +0)")
+__xlated("1: r7 = *(u32 *)(r6 +0)")
+__xlated("2: w7 += 1000")
+__xlated("3: *(u32 *)(r6 +0) = r7")
+/* main prog */
+__xlated("4: r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 +0)")
+__xlated("5: r6 = r1")
+__xlated("6: call kernel-function")
+__xlated("7: r1 = r6")
+__xlated("8: call pc+1")
+__xlated("9: exit")
+SEC("struct_ops/test_prologue_kfunc")
+__naked int test_prologue_kfunc(void)
+{
+	asm volatile (
+	"r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 +0);"
+	"r6 = r1;"
+	"call %[bpf_kfunc_st_ops_inc10];"
+	"r1 = r6;"
+	"call subprog;"
+	"exit;"
+	:
+	: __imm(bpf_kfunc_st_ops_inc10)
+	: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+__success
+/* save __u64 *ctx to stack */
+__xlated("0: *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = r1")
+/* main prog */
+__xlated("1: r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 +0)")
+__xlated("2: r6 = r1")
+__xlated("3: call kernel-function")
+__xlated("4: r1 = r6")
+__xlated("5: call pc+")
+/* epilogue */
+__xlated("6: r1 = *(u64 *)(r10 -8)")
+__xlated("7: r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 +0)")
+__xlated("8: r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +0)")
+__xlated("9: w6 += 10000")
+__xlated("10: *(u32 *)(r1 +0) = r6")
+__xlated("11: w0 = w6")
+__xlated("12: w0 *= 2")
+__xlated("13: exit")
+SEC("struct_ops/test_epilogue_kfunc")
+__naked int test_epilogue_kfunc(void)
+{
+	asm volatile (
+	"r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 +0);"
+	"r6 = r1;"
+	"call %[bpf_kfunc_st_ops_inc10];"
+	"r1 = r6;"
+	"call subprog;"
+	"exit;"
+	:
+	: __imm(bpf_kfunc_st_ops_inc10)
+	: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+__success
+/* prologue */
+__xlated("0: r6 = *(u64 *)(r1 +0)")
+__xlated("1: r7 = *(u32 *)(r6 +0)")
+__xlated("2: w7 += 1000")
+__xlated("3: *(u32 *)(r6 +0) = r7")
+/* save __u64 *ctx to stack */
+__xlated("4: *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = r1")
+/* main prog */
+__xlated("5: r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 +0)")
+__xlated("6: r6 = r1")
+__xlated("7: call kernel-function")
+__xlated("8: r1 = r6")
+__xlated("9: call pc+")
+/* epilogue */
+__xlated("10: r1 = *(u64 *)(r10 -8)")
+__xlated("11: r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 +0)")
+__xlated("12: r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +0)")
+__xlated("13: w6 += 10000")
+__xlated("14: *(u32 *)(r1 +0) = r6")
+__xlated("15: w0 = w6")
+__xlated("16: w0 *= 2")
+__xlated("17: exit")
+SEC("struct_ops/test_pro_epilogue_kfunc")
+__naked int test_pro_epilogue_kfunc(void)
+{
+	asm volatile (
+	"r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 +0);"
+	"r6 = r1;"
+	"call %[bpf_kfunc_st_ops_inc10];"
+	"r1 = r6;"
+	"call subprog;"
+	"exit;"
+	:
+	: __imm(bpf_kfunc_st_ops_inc10)
+	: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+SEC("syscall")
+__retval(1011) /* PROLOGUE_A [1000] + KFUNC_INC10 + SUBPROG_A [1] */
+int syscall_prologue_kfunc(void *ctx)
+{
+	struct st_ops_args args = {};
+
+	return bpf_kfunc_st_ops_test_prologue(&args);
+}
+
+SEC("syscall")
+__retval(20022) /* (KFUNC_INC10 + SUBPROG_A [1] + EPILOGUE_A [10000]) * 2 */
+int syscall_epilogue_kfunc(void *ctx)
+{
+	struct st_ops_args args = {};
+
+	return bpf_kfunc_st_ops_test_epilogue(&args);
+}
+
+SEC("syscall")
+__retval(22022) /* (PROLOGUE_A [1000] + KFUNC_INC10 + SUBPROG_A [1] + EPILOGUE_A [10000]) * 2 */
+int syscall_pro_epilogue_kfunc(void *ctx)
+{
+	struct st_ops_args args = {};
+
+	return bpf_kfunc_st_ops_test_pro_epilogue(&args);
+}
+
+SEC(".struct_ops.link")
+struct bpf_testmod_st_ops pro_epilogue_kfunc = {
+	.test_prologue = (void *)test_prologue_kfunc,
+	.test_epilogue = (void *)test_epilogue_kfunc,
+	.test_pro_epilogue = (void *)test_pro_epilogue_kfunc,
+};
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/pro_epilogue_subprog.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/pro_epilogue_subprog.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..c91b1bf30e37
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/pro_epilogue_subprog.c
@@ -0,0 +1,125 @@ 
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+/* Copyright (c) 2024 Meta Platforms, Inc. and affiliates. */
+
+#include <vmlinux.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
+#include "bpf_misc.h"
+#include "../bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h"
+#include "../bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod_kfunc.h"
+
+char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
+
+static __noinline __used int subprog(struct st_ops_args *args)
+{
+	args->a += 1;
+	return args->a;
+}
+
+__success
+/* prologue */
+__xlated("0: r6 = *(u64 *)(r1 +0)")
+__xlated("1: r7 = *(u32 *)(r6 +0)")
+__xlated("2: w7 += 1000")
+__xlated("3: *(u32 *)(r6 +0) = r7")
+/* main prog */
+__xlated("4: r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 +0)")
+__xlated("5: call pc+1")
+__xlated("6: exit")
+SEC("struct_ops/test_prologue_subprog")
+__naked int test_prologue_subprog(void)
+{
+	asm volatile (
+	"r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 +0);"
+	"call subprog;"
+	"exit;"
+	::: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+__success
+/* save __u64 *ctx to stack */
+__xlated("0: *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = r1")
+/* main prog */
+__xlated("1: r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 +0)")
+__xlated("2: call pc+")
+/* epilogue */
+__xlated("3: r1 = *(u64 *)(r10 -8)")
+__xlated("4: r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 +0)")
+__xlated("5: r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +0)")
+__xlated("6: w6 += 10000")
+__xlated("7: *(u32 *)(r1 +0) = r6")
+__xlated("8: w0 = w6")
+__xlated("9: w0 *= 2")
+__xlated("10: exit")
+SEC("struct_ops/test_epilogue_subprog")
+__naked int test_epilogue_subprog(void)
+{
+	asm volatile (
+	"r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 +0);"
+	"call subprog;"
+	"exit;"
+	::: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+__success
+/* prologue */
+__xlated("0: r6 = *(u64 *)(r1 +0)")
+__xlated("1: r7 = *(u32 *)(r6 +0)")
+__xlated("2: w7 += 1000")
+__xlated("3: *(u32 *)(r6 +0) = r7")
+/* save __u64 *ctx to stack */
+__xlated("4: *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = r1")
+/* main prog */
+__xlated("5: r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 +0)")
+__xlated("6: call pc+")
+/* epilogue */
+__xlated("7: r1 = *(u64 *)(r10 -8)")
+__xlated("8: r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 +0)")
+__xlated("9: r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +0)")
+__xlated("10: w6 += 10000")
+__xlated("11: *(u32 *)(r1 +0) = r6")
+__xlated("12: w0 = w6")
+__xlated("13: w0 *= 2")
+__xlated("14: exit")
+SEC("struct_ops/test_pro_epilogue_subprog")
+__naked int test_pro_epilogue_subprog(void)
+{
+	asm volatile (
+	"r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 +0);"
+	"call subprog;"
+	"exit;"
+	::: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+SEC("syscall")
+__retval(1001) /* PROLOGUE_A [1000] + SUBPROG_A [1] */
+int syscall_prologue_subprog(void *ctx)
+{
+	struct st_ops_args args = {};
+
+	return bpf_kfunc_st_ops_test_prologue(&args);
+}
+
+SEC("syscall")
+__retval(20002) /* (SUBPROG_A [1] + EPILOGUE_A [10000]) * 2 */
+int syscall_epilogue_subprog(void *ctx)
+{
+	struct st_ops_args args = {};
+
+	return bpf_kfunc_st_ops_test_epilogue(&args);
+}
+
+SEC("syscall")
+__retval(22002) /* (PROLOGUE_A [1000] + SUBPROG_A [1] + EPILOGUE_A [10000]) * 2 */
+int syscall_pro_epilogue_subprog(void *ctx)
+{
+	struct st_ops_args args = {};
+
+	return bpf_kfunc_st_ops_test_pro_epilogue(&args);
+}
+
+SEC(".struct_ops.link")
+struct bpf_testmod_st_ops pro_epilogue_subprog = {
+	.test_prologue = (void *)test_prologue_subprog,
+	.test_epilogue = (void *)test_epilogue_subprog,
+	.test_pro_epilogue = (void *)test_pro_epilogue_subprog,
+};