On Thu, 23 May 2019 at 16:31, Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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. > Jiong, that would be great. Thank you. I'd guess it would take much longer for me to do it (gmail.com time vs intel.com time ;-)). Björn > Regards, > Jiong > > > > > Thanks, > > Daniel >
