Hi, Ilya!
>>>>> On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 16:37:04 +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
>> 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?
ok. I choose "return -1" since changing default to -EINVAL sounds
as unrelated change to the patch.
> 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.
Good, thanks!
--
WBR,
Yauheni Kaliuta
