On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 8:50 PM Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > If CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON is not set and bpf_jit_enable is 0, there > exist 6 failed tests. > > [root@linux bpf]# echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable > [root@linux bpf]# echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/unprivileged_bpf_disabled > [root@linux bpf]# ./test_verifier | grep FAIL > #106/p inline simple bpf_loop call FAIL > #107/p don't inline bpf_loop call, flags non-zero FAIL > #108/p don't inline bpf_loop call, callback non-constant FAIL > #109/p bpf_loop_inline and a dead func FAIL > #110/p bpf_loop_inline stack locations for loop vars FAIL > #111/p inline bpf_loop call in a big program FAIL > Summary: 768 PASSED, 15 SKIPPED, 6 FAILED > > The test log shows that callbacks are not allowed in non-JITed programs, > interpreter doesn't support them yet, thus these tests should be skipped > if jit is disabled, copy some check functions from the other places under > tools directory, and then handle this case in do_test_single(). > > With this patch: > > [root@linux bpf]# echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable > [root@linux bpf]# echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/unprivileged_bpf_disabled > [root@linux bpf]# ./test_verifier | grep FAIL > Summary: 768 PASSED, 21 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED > > Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@xxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c > index 1a09fc34d093..02c4a0bbdc5e 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c > @@ -74,6 +74,7 @@ > 1ULL << CAP_BPF) > #define UNPRIV_SYSCTL "kernel/unprivileged_bpf_disabled" > static bool unpriv_disabled = false; > +static bool jit_disabled; > static int skips; > static bool verbose = false; > static int verif_log_level = 0; > @@ -1355,6 +1356,16 @@ static bool is_skip_insn(struct bpf_insn *insn) > return memcmp(insn, &skip_insn, sizeof(skip_insn)) == 0; > } > > +static bool is_ldimm64_insn(struct bpf_insn *insn) > +{ > + return insn->code == (BPF_LD | BPF_IMM | BPF_DW); > +} > + > +static bool insn_is_pseudo_func(struct bpf_insn *insn) > +{ > + return is_ldimm64_insn(insn) && insn->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_FUNC; > +} > + These two functions are duplicated from libbpf_internal.h and libbpf.c. It will be good to reuse them. We will need something like the following to include libbpf_internal.h and fix "poisoned" errors. Thanks, Song diff --git i/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c w/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c index 98107e0452d3..7528a6b41623 100644 --- i/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c +++ w/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ #include "test_btf.h" #include "../../../include/linux/filter.h" #include "testing_helpers.h" +#include "bpf/libbpf_internal.h" #ifndef ENOTSUPP #define ENOTSUPP 524 @@ -1143,8 +1144,8 @@ static void do_test_fixup(struct bpf_test *test, enum bpf_prog_type prog_type, } while (*fixup_map_xskmap); } if (*fixup_map_stacktrace) { - map_fds[12] = create_map(BPF_MAP_TYPE_STACK_TRACE, sizeof(u32), - sizeof(u64), 1); + map_fds[12] = create_map(BPF_MAP_TYPE_STACK_TRACE, sizeof(__u32), + sizeof(__u64), 1); do { prog[*fixup_map_stacktrace].imm = map_fds[12]; fixup_map_stacktrace++; @@ -1203,7 +1204,7 @@ static void do_test_fixup(struct bpf_test *test, enum bpf_prog_type prog_type, } if (*fixup_map_reuseport_array) { map_fds[19] = __create_map(BPF_MAP_TYPE_REUSEPORT_SOCKARRAY, - sizeof(u32), sizeof(u64), 1, 0); + sizeof(__u32), sizeof(__u64), 1, 0); do { prog[*fixup_map_reuseport_array].imm = map_fds[19]; fixup_map_reuseport_array++;