> Am 27.08.2019 um 16:21 schrieb Yauheni Kaliuta <yauheni.kaliuta@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> 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?
So far I only spotted a minor issue:
+ if (ret < 0)
+ return ret;
Right now bpf_jit_insn returns 0 or -1, but bpf_jit_get_func_addr
returns 0 or -errno. This does not affect anything in the end, but just
to be uniform, maybe return -1 here or -EINVAL in the default: branch?
I don't see any other obvious problems with the patch, but I'd like to
take some time to understand how exactly some parts of it work before
acking it. So I think it's fine to post a non-RFC version.
