On 12/13, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 1:23 PM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 12/13, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 9:53 AM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > wire_len should not be less than real len and is capped by GSO_MAX_SIZE. > > > > gso_segs is capped by GSO_MAX_SEGS. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > This change breaks tests: > > > ./test_progs -n 16 > > > test_kfree_skb:PASS:prog_load sched cls 0 nsec > > > test_kfree_skb:PASS:prog_load raw tp 0 nsec > > > test_kfree_skb:PASS:find_prog 0 nsec > > > test_kfree_skb:PASS:find_prog 0 nsec > > > test_kfree_skb:PASS:find_prog 0 nsec > > > test_kfree_skb:PASS:find global data 0 nsec > > > test_kfree_skb:PASS:attach_raw_tp 0 nsec > > > test_kfree_skb:PASS:attach fentry 0 nsec > > > test_kfree_skb:PASS:attach fexit 0 nsec > > > test_kfree_skb:PASS:find_perf_buf_map 0 nsec > > > test_kfree_skb:PASS:perf_buf__new 0 nsec > > > test_kfree_skb:FAIL:ipv6 err -1 errno 22 retval 0 duration 0 > > > on_sample:PASS:check_size 0 nsec > > > on_sample:PASS:check_meta_ifindex 0 nsec > > > on_sample:PASS:check_cb8_0 0 nsec > > > on_sample:PASS:check_cb32_0 0 nsec > > > on_sample:PASS:check_eth 0 nsec > > > on_sample:PASS:check_ip 0 nsec > > > on_sample:PASS:check_tcp 0 nsec > > > test_kfree_skb:PASS:perf_buffer__poll 0 nsec > > > test_kfree_skb:PASS:get_result 0 nsec > > > #16 kfree_skb:FAIL > > > Summary: 0/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 1 FAILED > > Ugh, it's probably because of '__skb->wire_len < skb->len' check. > > Let me take a look. > > > > (sorry, I'm still not running/looking at full test_progs because BTF support > > is WIP in our toolchain and some subtests fail because of that, > > generating a bunch of noise). > > I thought all bpf-next developers are developing against that tree ? I am developing against that tree, but I have a wrapper around make that points it to the proper version of cc/tools that we use for prod builds (for consistency). > Are you saying you cannot install the latest clang/pahole on your > development system? > git pull llvm;ninja;ninja install; > git pull pahole; cmake;make > why is it not possible? Yeah, I'll do that now, it just requires some manual movements :-) > Now your complains about skeleton make more sense, > but it's an issue with your particular setup. > > Anyway I'm not sure that this test issue is actually an issue with your patch. > It could be that this test is flaky in a weird way. Just with and without your > kernel patch it's 100% reproducible for me and I need to keep the rest > of the patches > moving without introducing failures in my test setup. > All that will get resolved when we have kernel CI. No, I'm pretty sure that's that wire_len check. I think I need to add a special case to set it to skb->len if it's zero. Will follow up with a v2!
