> Am 27.08.2019 um 15:21 schrieb Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
>> Am 26.08.2019 um 20:20 schrieb Yauheni Kaliuta <yauheni.kaliuta@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>>
>> test_verifier (5.3-rc6):
>>
>> without patch:
>> Summary: 1501 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 47 FAILED
>>
>> with patch:
>> Summary: 1540 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 8 FAILED
>
> Are you per chance running with a testsuite patch like this one?
>
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> @@ -846,7 +846,7 @@ static int do_prog_test_run(int fd_prog, bool unpriv, uint32_t expected_val,
> tmp, &size_tmp, &retval, NULL);
> if (unpriv)
> set_admin(false);
> - if (err && errno != 524/*ENOTSUPP*/ && errno != EPERM) {
> + if (err && errno != EPERM) {
> printf("Unexpected bpf_prog_test_run error ");
> return err;
> }
>
> Without it, all the failures appear to be masked for me.
Hmm, I'm sorry, I thought about it a bit more, and the patch I posted
above doesn't make any sense, because the failures you fixed are during
load, and not run time.
Now I think you are using CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON for your testing,
is that right? If yes, it would be nice to mention this in the commit
message.
