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
