> On 23 May 2019, at 15:02, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 05/23/2019 08:38 AM, Y Song wrote: >> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 1:46 PM Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Wed, 22 May 2019 at 20:13, Y Song <ys114321@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 2:25 AM Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Add three tests to test_verifier/basic_instr that make sure that the >>>>> high 32-bits of the destination register is cleared after an ALU32 >>>>> and/or/xor. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> I think the patch intends for bpf-next, right? The patch itself looks >>>> good to me. >>>> Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx> >>> >>> Thank you. Actually, it was intended for the bpf tree, as a test >>> follow up for this [1] fix. >> Then maybe you want to add a Fixes tag and resubmit? > > Why would the test case need a fixes tag? It's common practice that we have > BPF fixes that we queue to bpf tree along with kselftest test cases related > to them. Therefore, applied as well, thanks for following up! > > Björn, in my email from the fix, I mentioned we should have test snippets > ideally for all of the alu32 insns to not miss something falling through the > cracks when JITs get added or changed. If you have some cycles to add the > remaining missing ones, that would be much appreciated. Björn, If you don’t have time, I can take this alu32 test case follow up as well. Regards, Jiong > > Thanks, > Daniel
