On Mon, 2024-07-01 at 17:42 -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: [...] > You don't seem to have a case where offset is not a multiple of 8 > (though it would have to be a sub-register spill which would be > "rejected" anyway, so not sure if there is anything to add here) My bad, will add such a test-case. > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c [...] > > +void test_verifier_nocsr(void) > > +{ > > +#if defined(__x86_64__) > > + RUN(verifier_nocsr); > > +#endif /* __x86_64__ */ > > maybe #else <mark-as-skipped> ? Right, makes sense. [...] > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_nocsr.c > > @@ -0,0 +1,437 @@ > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > + > > +#include <linux/bpf.h> > > +#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h> > > +#include "bpf_misc.h" > > + > > +#define __xlated_bpf_get_smp_processor_id \ > > + __xlated(": w0 = ") \ > > how will this work for no_alu32 mode? The patch is applied by kernel, and it does not care about alu32 compiler flags: insn_buf[0] = BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_0, (u32)(unsigned long)&pcpu_hot.cpu_number); insn_buf[1] = BPF_MOV64_PERCPU_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0); insn_buf[2] = BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0); [...]