Hi, Ilya!
>>>>> On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 15:46:43 +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
>> 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
Right.
> this in the commit message.
Sure. Should I post non-RFC v2 or wait for some more comments?
--
WBR,
Yauheni Kaliuta
