Hi, Ilya! >>>>> On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 16:46:46 +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote: >> Am 27.08.2019 um 16:25 schrieb Yauheni Kaliuta <yauheni.kaliuta@xxxxxxxxxx>: >> >> 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? > Yes, this is because right now JIT generates clrj and friends, > which can jump only by +-32k. Improving this is actually my > next task (after fixing more or less "obvious" test suite > problems). ah, great. Sorry for the noise. -- WBR, Yauheni Kaliuta