diff mbox series

[bpf-next,08/24] selftests/bpf: Fix verify_pkcs7_sig on s390x

Message ID 20230125213817.1424447-9-iii@linux.ibm.com (mailing list archive)
State Superseded
Delegated to: BPF
Headers show
Series Support bpf trampoline for s390x | expand

Checks

Context Check Description
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-PR success PR summary
netdev/tree_selection success Clearly marked for bpf-next, async
netdev/fixes_present success Fixes tag not required for -next series
netdev/subject_prefix success Link
netdev/cover_letter success Series has a cover letter
netdev/patch_count fail Series longer than 15 patches (and no cover letter)
netdev/header_inline success No static functions without inline keyword in header files
netdev/build_32bit success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/cc_maintainers warning 12 maintainers not CCed: sdf@google.com kpsingh@kernel.org roberto.sassu@huawei.com jolsa@kernel.org mykolal@fb.com martin.lau@linux.dev song@kernel.org linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org john.fastabend@gmail.com shuah@kernel.org haoluo@google.com yhs@fb.com
netdev/build_clang success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/module_param success Was 0 now: 0
netdev/verify_signedoff success Signed-off-by tag matches author and committer
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: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/checkpatch success total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 50 lines checked
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-VM_Test-7 success Logs for llvm-toolchain
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-8 success Logs for set-matrix
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-2 success Logs for build for aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-3 success Logs for build for aarch64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-5 success Logs for build for x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-6 success Logs for build for x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-4 success Logs for build for s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-9 success Logs for test_maps on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-10 success Logs for test_maps on aarch64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-12 success Logs for test_maps on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-13 success Logs for test_maps on x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-14 success Logs for test_progs on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-15 success Logs for test_progs on aarch64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-17 success Logs for test_progs on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-18 success Logs for test_progs on x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-19 success Logs for test_progs_no_alu32 on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-20 success Logs for test_progs_no_alu32 on aarch64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-22 success Logs for test_progs_no_alu32 on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-23 success Logs for test_progs_no_alu32 on x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-24 success Logs for test_progs_no_alu32_parallel on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-25 success Logs for test_progs_no_alu32_parallel on aarch64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-27 success Logs for test_progs_no_alu32_parallel on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-28 success Logs for test_progs_no_alu32_parallel on x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-29 success Logs for test_progs_parallel on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-30 success Logs for test_progs_parallel on aarch64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-32 success Logs for test_progs_parallel on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-33 success Logs for test_progs_parallel on x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-34 success Logs for test_verifier on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-35 success Logs for test_verifier on aarch64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-37 success Logs for test_verifier on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-38 success Logs for test_verifier on x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-31 success Logs for test_progs_parallel on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-36 success Logs for test_verifier on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-11 success Logs for test_maps on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-21 success Logs for test_progs_no_alu32 on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-16 success Logs for test_progs on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-26 success Logs for test_progs_no_alu32_parallel on s390x with gcc

Commit Message

Ilya Leoshkevich Jan. 25, 2023, 9:38 p.m. UTC 
Use bpf_probe_read_kernel() instead of bpf_probe_read(), which is not
defined on all architectures.

While at it, improve the error handling: do not hide the verifier log,
and check the return values of bpf_probe_read_kernel() and
bpf_copy_from_user().

Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>
---
 .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verify_pkcs7_sig.c      |  9 +++++++++
 .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_verify_pkcs7_sig.c      | 12 ++++++++----
 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

Comments

Andrii Nakryiko Jan. 26, 2023, 1:06 a.m. UTC | #1 
On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 1:39 PM Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> Use bpf_probe_read_kernel() instead of bpf_probe_read(), which is not
> defined on all architectures.
>
> While at it, improve the error handling: do not hide the verifier log,
> and check the return values of bpf_probe_read_kernel() and
> bpf_copy_from_user().
>
> Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
>  .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verify_pkcs7_sig.c      |  9 +++++++++
>  .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_verify_pkcs7_sig.c      | 12 ++++++++----
>  2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verify_pkcs7_sig.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verify_pkcs7_sig.c
> index 579d6ee83ce0..75c256f79f85 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verify_pkcs7_sig.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verify_pkcs7_sig.c
> @@ -56,11 +56,17 @@ struct data {
>         __u32 sig_len;
>  };
>
> +static char libbpf_log[8192];
>  static bool kfunc_not_supported;
>
>  static int libbpf_print_cb(enum libbpf_print_level level, const char *fmt,
>                            va_list args)
>  {
> +       size_t log_len = strlen(libbpf_log);
> +
> +       vsnprintf(libbpf_log + log_len, sizeof(libbpf_log) - log_len,
> +                 fmt, args);

it seems like test is written to assume that load might fail and we'll
get error messages, so not sure it's that useful to print out these
errors. But at the very least we should filter out DEBUG and INFO
level messages, and pass through WARN only.

Also, there is no point in having a separate log buffer, just printf
directly. test_progs will take care to collect overall log and ignore
it if test succeeds, or emit it if test fails


> +
>         if (strcmp(fmt, "libbpf: extern (func ksym) '%s': not found in kernel or module BTFs\n"))
>                 return 0;
>
> @@ -277,6 +283,7 @@ void test_verify_pkcs7_sig(void)
>         if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "test_verify_pkcs7_sig__open"))
>                 goto close_prog;
>
> +       libbpf_log[0] = 0;
>         old_print_cb = libbpf_set_print(libbpf_print_cb);
>         ret = test_verify_pkcs7_sig__load(skel);
>         libbpf_set_print(old_print_cb);
> @@ -289,6 +296,8 @@ void test_verify_pkcs7_sig(void)
>                 goto close_prog;
>         }
>
> +       printf("%s", libbpf_log);
> +
>         if (!ASSERT_OK(ret, "test_verify_pkcs7_sig__load"))
>                 goto close_prog;
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_verify_pkcs7_sig.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_verify_pkcs7_sig.c
> index ce419304ff1f..7748cc23de8a 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_verify_pkcs7_sig.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_verify_pkcs7_sig.c
> @@ -59,10 +59,14 @@ int BPF_PROG(bpf, int cmd, union bpf_attr *attr, unsigned int size)
>         if (!data_val)
>                 return 0;
>
> -       bpf_probe_read(&value, sizeof(value), &attr->value);
> -
> -       bpf_copy_from_user(data_val, sizeof(struct data),
> -                          (void *)(unsigned long)value);
> +       ret = bpf_probe_read_kernel(&value, sizeof(value), &attr->value);
> +       if (ret)
> +               return ret;
> +
> +       ret = bpf_copy_from_user(data_val, sizeof(struct data),
> +                                (void *)(unsigned long)value);
> +       if (ret)
> +               return ret;

this part looks good, we shouldn't use bpf_probe_read.

You'll have to update progs/profiler.inc.h as well, btw, which still
uses bpf_probe_read() and bpf_probe_read_str.
>
>         if (data_val->data_len > sizeof(data_val->data))
>                 return -EINVAL;
> --
> 2.39.1
>
Ilya Leoshkevich Jan. 27, 2023, 12:36 p.m. UTC | #2 
On Wed, 2023-01-25 at 17:06 -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 1:39 PM Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> > Use bpf_probe_read_kernel() instead of bpf_probe_read(), which is
> > not
> > defined on all architectures.
> > 
> > While at it, improve the error handling: do not hide the verifier
> > log,
> > and check the return values of bpf_probe_read_kernel() and
> > bpf_copy_from_user().
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>
> > ---
> >  .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verify_pkcs7_sig.c      |  9
> > +++++++++
> >  .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_verify_pkcs7_sig.c      | 12
> > ++++++++----
> >  2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git
> > a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verify_pkcs7_sig.c
> > b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verify_pkcs7_sig.c
> > index 579d6ee83ce0..75c256f79f85 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verify_pkcs7_sig.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verify_pkcs7_sig.c
> > @@ -56,11 +56,17 @@ struct data {
> >         __u32 sig_len;
> >  };
> > 
> > +static char libbpf_log[8192];
> >  static bool kfunc_not_supported;
> > 
> >  static int libbpf_print_cb(enum libbpf_print_level level, const
> > char *fmt,
> >                            va_list args)
> >  {
> > +       size_t log_len = strlen(libbpf_log);
> > +
> > +       vsnprintf(libbpf_log + log_len, sizeof(libbpf_log) -
> > log_len,
> > +                 fmt, args);
> 
> it seems like test is written to assume that load might fail and
> we'll
> get error messages, so not sure it's that useful to print out these
> errors. But at the very least we should filter out DEBUG and INFO
> level messages, and pass through WARN only.
> 
> Also, there is no point in having a separate log buffer, just printf
> directly. test_progs will take care to collect overall log and ignore
> it if test succeeds, or emit it if test fails

Thanks, I completely overlooked the fact that the test framework
already hides the output in case of success. With that in mind I can do
just this:

--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verify_pkcs7_sig.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verify_pkcs7_sig.c
@@ -61,6 +61,9 @@ static bool kfunc_not_supported;
 static int libbpf_print_cb(enum libbpf_print_level level, const char
*fmt,
                           va_list args)
 {
+       if (level == LIBBPF_WARN)
+               vprintf(fmt, args);
+
        if (strcmp(fmt, "libbpf: extern (func ksym) '%s': not found in
kernel or module BTFs\n"))
                return 0;
 
If the load fails due to missing kfuncs, we'll skip the test - I think
in this case the output won't be printed either, so we should be fine.

> > +
> >         if (strcmp(fmt, "libbpf: extern (func ksym) '%s': not found
> > in kernel or module BTFs\n"))
> >                 return 0;
> > 
> > @@ -277,6 +283,7 @@ void test_verify_pkcs7_sig(void)
> >         if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "test_verify_pkcs7_sig__open"))
> >                 goto close_prog;
> > 
> > +       libbpf_log[0] = 0;
> >         old_print_cb = libbpf_set_print(libbpf_print_cb);
> >         ret = test_verify_pkcs7_sig__load(skel);
> >         libbpf_set_print(old_print_cb);
> > @@ -289,6 +296,8 @@ void test_verify_pkcs7_sig(void)
> >                 goto close_prog;
> >         }
> > 
> > +       printf("%s", libbpf_log);
> > +
> >         if (!ASSERT_OK(ret, "test_verify_pkcs7_sig__load"))
> >                 goto close_prog;
> > 
> > diff --git
> > a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_verify_pkcs7_sig.c
> > b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_verify_pkcs7_sig.c
> > index ce419304ff1f..7748cc23de8a 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_verify_pkcs7_sig.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_verify_pkcs7_sig.c
> > @@ -59,10 +59,14 @@ int BPF_PROG(bpf, int cmd, union bpf_attr
> > *attr, unsigned int size)
> >         if (!data_val)
> >                 return 0;
> > 
> > -       bpf_probe_read(&value, sizeof(value), &attr->value);
> > -
> > -       bpf_copy_from_user(data_val, sizeof(struct data),
> > -                          (void *)(unsigned long)value);
> > +       ret = bpf_probe_read_kernel(&value, sizeof(value), &attr-
> > >value);
> > +       if (ret)
> > +               return ret;
> > +
> > +       ret = bpf_copy_from_user(data_val, sizeof(struct data),
> > +                                (void *)(unsigned long)value);
> > +       if (ret)
> > +               return ret;
> 
> this part looks good, we shouldn't use bpf_probe_read.
> 
> You'll have to update progs/profiler.inc.h as well, btw, which still
> uses bpf_probe_read() and bpf_probe_read_str.

I remember trying this, but there were still failures due to, as I
thought back then, usage of BPF_CORE_READ() and the lack of
BPF_CORE_READ_KERNEL(). But this seems to be a generic issue. Let me
try again and post my findings as a reply to 0/24.

> >         if (data_val->data_len > sizeof(data_val->data))
> >                 return -EINVAL;
> > --
> > 2.39.1
> >
Andrii Nakryiko Jan. 27, 2023, 5:26 p.m. UTC | #3 
On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 4:36 AM Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2023-01-25 at 17:06 -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 1:39 PM Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Use bpf_probe_read_kernel() instead of bpf_probe_read(), which is
> > > not
> > > defined on all architectures.
> > >
> > > While at it, improve the error handling: do not hide the verifier
> > > log,
> > > and check the return values of bpf_probe_read_kernel() and
> > > bpf_copy_from_user().
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>
> > > ---
> > >  .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verify_pkcs7_sig.c      |  9
> > > +++++++++
> > >  .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_verify_pkcs7_sig.c      | 12
> > > ++++++++----
> > >  2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git
> > > a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verify_pkcs7_sig.c
> > > b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verify_pkcs7_sig.c
> > > index 579d6ee83ce0..75c256f79f85 100644
> > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verify_pkcs7_sig.c
> > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verify_pkcs7_sig.c
> > > @@ -56,11 +56,17 @@ struct data {
> > >         __u32 sig_len;
> > >  };
> > >
> > > +static char libbpf_log[8192];
> > >  static bool kfunc_not_supported;
> > >
> > >  static int libbpf_print_cb(enum libbpf_print_level level, const
> > > char *fmt,
> > >                            va_list args)
> > >  {
> > > +       size_t log_len = strlen(libbpf_log);
> > > +
> > > +       vsnprintf(libbpf_log + log_len, sizeof(libbpf_log) -
> > > log_len,
> > > +                 fmt, args);
> >
> > it seems like test is written to assume that load might fail and
> > we'll
> > get error messages, so not sure it's that useful to print out these
> > errors. But at the very least we should filter out DEBUG and INFO
> > level messages, and pass through WARN only.
> >
> > Also, there is no point in having a separate log buffer, just printf
> > directly. test_progs will take care to collect overall log and ignore
> > it if test succeeds, or emit it if test fails
>
> Thanks, I completely overlooked the fact that the test framework
> already hides the output in case of success. With that in mind I can do
> just this:
>
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verify_pkcs7_sig.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verify_pkcs7_sig.c
> @@ -61,6 +61,9 @@ static bool kfunc_not_supported;
>  static int libbpf_print_cb(enum libbpf_print_level level, const char
> *fmt,
>                            va_list args)
>  {
> +       if (level == LIBBPF_WARN)
> +               vprintf(fmt, args);
> +
>         if (strcmp(fmt, "libbpf: extern (func ksym) '%s': not found in
> kernel or module BTFs\n"))
>                 return 0;
>
> If the load fails due to missing kfuncs, we'll skip the test - I think
> in this case the output won't be printed either, so we should be fine.

sgtm

>
> > > +
> > >         if (strcmp(fmt, "libbpf: extern (func ksym) '%s': not found
> > > in kernel or module BTFs\n"))
> > >                 return 0;
> > >
> > > @@ -277,6 +283,7 @@ void test_verify_pkcs7_sig(void)
> > >         if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "test_verify_pkcs7_sig__open"))
> > >                 goto close_prog;
> > >
> > > +       libbpf_log[0] = 0;
> > >         old_print_cb = libbpf_set_print(libbpf_print_cb);
> > >         ret = test_verify_pkcs7_sig__load(skel);
> > >         libbpf_set_print(old_print_cb);
> > > @@ -289,6 +296,8 @@ void test_verify_pkcs7_sig(void)
> > >                 goto close_prog;
> > >         }
> > >
> > > +       printf("%s", libbpf_log);
> > > +
> > >         if (!ASSERT_OK(ret, "test_verify_pkcs7_sig__load"))
> > >                 goto close_prog;
> > >
> > > diff --git
> > > a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_verify_pkcs7_sig.c
> > > b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_verify_pkcs7_sig.c
> > > index ce419304ff1f..7748cc23de8a 100644
> > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_verify_pkcs7_sig.c
> > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_verify_pkcs7_sig.c
> > > @@ -59,10 +59,14 @@ int BPF_PROG(bpf, int cmd, union bpf_attr
> > > *attr, unsigned int size)
> > >         if (!data_val)
> > >                 return 0;
> > >
> > > -       bpf_probe_read(&value, sizeof(value), &attr->value);
> > > -
> > > -       bpf_copy_from_user(data_val, sizeof(struct data),
> > > -                          (void *)(unsigned long)value);
> > > +       ret = bpf_probe_read_kernel(&value, sizeof(value), &attr-
> > > >value);
> > > +       if (ret)
> > > +               return ret;
> > > +
> > > +       ret = bpf_copy_from_user(data_val, sizeof(struct data),
> > > +                                (void *)(unsigned long)value);
> > > +       if (ret)
> > > +               return ret;
> >
> > this part looks good, we shouldn't use bpf_probe_read.
> >
> > You'll have to update progs/profiler.inc.h as well, btw, which still
> > uses bpf_probe_read() and bpf_probe_read_str.
>
> I remember trying this, but there were still failures due to, as I
> thought back then, usage of BPF_CORE_READ() and the lack of
> BPF_CORE_READ_KERNEL(). But this seems to be a generic issue. Let me
> try again and post my findings as a reply to 0/24.

Yep, replied there as well: BPF_PROBE_READ still using
bpf_probe_read() is an omission and we should fix that.

>
> > >         if (data_val->data_len > sizeof(data_val->data))
> > >                 return -EINVAL;
> > > --
> > > 2.39.1
> > >
>
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verify_pkcs7_sig.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verify_pkcs7_sig.c
index 579d6ee83ce0..75c256f79f85 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verify_pkcs7_sig.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verify_pkcs7_sig.c
@@ -56,11 +56,17 @@  struct data {
 	__u32 sig_len;
 };
 
+static char libbpf_log[8192];
 static bool kfunc_not_supported;
 
 static int libbpf_print_cb(enum libbpf_print_level level, const char *fmt,
 			   va_list args)
 {
+	size_t log_len = strlen(libbpf_log);
+
+	vsnprintf(libbpf_log + log_len, sizeof(libbpf_log) - log_len,
+		  fmt, args);
+
 	if (strcmp(fmt, "libbpf: extern (func ksym) '%s': not found in kernel or module BTFs\n"))
 		return 0;
 
@@ -277,6 +283,7 @@  void test_verify_pkcs7_sig(void)
 	if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "test_verify_pkcs7_sig__open"))
 		goto close_prog;
 
+	libbpf_log[0] = 0;
 	old_print_cb = libbpf_set_print(libbpf_print_cb);
 	ret = test_verify_pkcs7_sig__load(skel);
 	libbpf_set_print(old_print_cb);
@@ -289,6 +296,8 @@  void test_verify_pkcs7_sig(void)
 		goto close_prog;
 	}
 
+	printf("%s", libbpf_log);
+
 	if (!ASSERT_OK(ret, "test_verify_pkcs7_sig__load"))
 		goto close_prog;
 
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_verify_pkcs7_sig.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_verify_pkcs7_sig.c
index ce419304ff1f..7748cc23de8a 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_verify_pkcs7_sig.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_verify_pkcs7_sig.c
@@ -59,10 +59,14 @@  int BPF_PROG(bpf, int cmd, union bpf_attr *attr, unsigned int size)
 	if (!data_val)
 		return 0;
 
-	bpf_probe_read(&value, sizeof(value), &attr->value);
-
-	bpf_copy_from_user(data_val, sizeof(struct data),
-			   (void *)(unsigned long)value);
+	ret = bpf_probe_read_kernel(&value, sizeof(value), &attr->value);
+	if (ret)
+		return ret;
+
+	ret = bpf_copy_from_user(data_val, sizeof(struct data),
+				 (void *)(unsigned long)value);
+	if (ret)
+		return ret;
 
 	if (data_val->data_len > sizeof(data_val->data))
 		return -EINVAL;