Hi, Ilya!
>>>>> On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 15:21:30 +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
>> 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.
BTW, I have several failures because of low BPF_SIZE_MAX. If I
increase it, some tests pass (#585/p ld_abs: vlan + abs, test 1),
but some crash (#587/p ld_abs: jump around ld_abs, haven't
found the reason yet).
Have you observed anything like that?
--
WBR,
Yauheni Kaliuta
