I just found that with latest bpf-next, selftest iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count
failed with latest llvm when running './test_progs-cpuv4 -j'.
The failure looks like below:
...
libbpf: prog 'iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count': BPF program load failed: Invalid argument
libbpf: prog 'iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count': failed to load: -22
libbpf: failed to load object 'iters'
run_subtest:FAIL:unexpected_load_failure unexpected error: -22 (errno 22)
VERIFIER LOG:
=============
reg type unsupported for arg#0 function iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count#112
0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0
; int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx)
0: (b4) w7 = 0 ; R7_w=0
; int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0;
1: (18) r1 = 0xffffc90000162478 ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144)
3: (61) r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +128) ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) R6_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff))
; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data))
4: (26) if w6 > 0x20 goto pc+27 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
5: (bf) r8 = r10 ; R8_w=fp0 R10=fp0
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) {
6: (07) r8 += -8 ; R8_w=fp-8
7: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1_w=fp-8 R8_w=fp-8
8: (b4) w2 = 0 ; R2_w=0
9: (bc) w3 = w6 ; R3_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R6_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax)
10: (85) call bpf_iter_num_new#91189 ; R0=scalar() fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=0) refs=2
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) {
11: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1=fp-8 R8=fp-8 refs=2
12: (85) call bpf_iter_num_next#91191 13: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp2
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) {
13: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2) refs=2
14: (81) r1 = *(s32 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2) R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) refs=2
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) {
15: (ae) if w1 < w6 goto pc+4 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2) R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0; 02
; sum += loop_data.data[i];
20: (67) r1 <<= 2 ; R1_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffc0000007c,umax=0xfffffffc0000007c,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=124,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffc0000007c)) refs=2
21: (18) r2 = 0xffffc90000162478 ; R2_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) refs=2
23: (0f) r2 += r1
math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed
processed 31 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 0 total_states 4 peak_states 4 mark_read 3
=============
#106/51 iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count:FAIL
...
At insn #14, a signed load is read into r1.
At insn #15, a condition 'w1 < w6' try to refine the range of w1. Considering w6 range [0, 32],
w1 also having range [0, 32].
But unfortunately, the w1 range [0, 32] is not helpful to refine r1 as sign extension
information (w1 -> r1) is not available to insn #15.
At insn #20, r1 initial range keeps
R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0
, ...)
and this caused verification failure.
The following llvm patch is responsible for the regression:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/d77067d08a3f56dc2d0e6c95bd2852c943df743a
We will do further debugging to see how much we can do in llvm side to resolve this case.
Yonghong
