On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 04:36:15PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> Similarly to subprog/callback logic, enforce return value of BPF program
> using more precise umin/umax range.
>
> We need to adjust a bunch of tests due to a changed format of an error
> message.
>
> Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@xxxxxxxxxx>
...
Q: should the missing register name and values be added?
I know relatively little about selftest, but scrolling through it looks
as though the expect verifier message is incomplete. (Admittedly lots of
them are like this even before this patch, and this patch improves the
situation already)
e.g.
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_global_func15.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_global_func15.c
> @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ __noinline int foo(unsigned int *v)
> }
>
> SEC("cgroup_skb/ingress")
> -__failure __msg("At program exit the register R0 has value")
> +__failure __msg("At program exit the register R0 has ")
> int global_func15(struct __sk_buff *skb)
> {
> unsigned int v = 1;
looks like it is missing umin/umax=1
...
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_cgroup_inv_retcode.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_cgroup_inv_retcode.c
> index d6c4a7f3f790..4655f01b24aa 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_cgroup_inv_retcode.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_cgroup_inv_retcode.c
> @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
>
> SEC("cgroup/sock")
> __description("bpf_exit with invalid return code. test1")
> -__failure __msg("R0 has value (0x0; 0xffffffff)")
> +__failure __msg("umax=4294967295 should have been in [0, 1]")
> __naked void with_invalid_return_code_test1(void)
> {
> asm volatile (" \
looks like it is missing mention of R0, etc.
