+bpf On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 6:17 PM Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 15:56:39 +0000 > Daniel Xu <dlxu@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > [sorry for outlook top post] > > > > Hi Masami, > > > > test_progs is checked into kernel tree. There should be source files in selftests > > for the test names. For example, for fill_link_info/kprobe_multi_invalid_ubuff > > failure: > > > > $ find . -name "*fill_link_info*" > > ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fill_link_info.c > > ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_fill_link_info.c > > > > veristat I'm less famiiar with. My understanding is that it checks for verifier > > regressions. Skimming your patchset, it's not obvious to me why verifier > > would regress. If you have issues debugging that, we can poke Andrii for > > help. > > Thanks for the information! Hmm, maybe kprobe_multi_testmod_check might check the > register which is not supported on the ftrace_regs. But I also don't have any idea This test is getting IP of the function using bpf_get_func_ip() helper. If that somehow started returning wrong value on arm64/s390x, then the test will basically not find expected addresses > about veristat. Is that also checks all pt_regs? Andrii, do you have any idea? I wouldn't worry about veristat, your changes shouldn't regress BPF verifier logic, so it's probably just an artifact of our BPF CI setup. The above test regression seems much more worrying. > > Thank you, > > > > > Thanks, > > Daniel > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2024 5:58 PM > > To: bot+bpf-ci@xxxxxxxxxx <bot+bpf-ci@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: kernel-ci <kernel-ci@xxxxxxxx>; andrii@xxxxxxxxxx <andrii@xxxxxxxxxx>; daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; martin.lau@xxxxxxxxx <martin.lau@xxxxxxxxx> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 00/20] tracing: fprobe: function_graph: Multi-function graph and fprobe on fgraph > > > > Hi, > > > > Where can I get the test programs? I would like to check what the programs > > actually expected. > > > > On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 13:51:30 +0000 (UTC) > > bot+bpf-ci@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > > Dear patch submitter, > > > > > > CI has tested the following submission: > > > Status: FAILURE > > > Name: [v13,00/20] tracing: fprobe: function_graph: Multi-function graph and fprobe on fgraph > > > Patchwork: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=880630&state=* > > > Matrix: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/10440799833 > > > > > > Failed jobs: > > > test_progs-aarch64-gcc: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/10440799833/job/28911439106 > > > test_progs_no_alu32-aarch64-gcc: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/10440799833/job/28911439234 > > > test_progs-s390x-gcc: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/10440799833/job/28911405063 > > > test_progs_no_alu32-s390x-gcc: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/10440799833/job/28911404959 > > > veristat-x86_64-gcc: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/10440799833/job/28911401263 > > > > > > First test_progs failure (test_progs-aarch64-gcc): > > > #126 kprobe_multi_testmod_test > > > serial_test_kprobe_multi_testmod_test:PASS:load_kallsyms_local 0 nsec > > > #126/1 kprobe_multi_testmod_test/testmod_attach_api_syms > > > test_testmod_attach_api:PASS:fentry_raw_skel_load 0 nsec > > > trigger_module_test_read:PASS:testmod_file_open 0 nsec > > > test_testmod_attach_api:PASS:trigger_read 0 nsec > > > kprobe_multi_testmod_check:FAIL:kprobe_test1_result unexpected kprobe_test1_result: actual 0 != expected 1 > > > kprobe_multi_testmod_check:FAIL:kprobe_test2_result unexpected kprobe_test2_result: actual 0 != expected 1 > > > kprobe_multi_testmod_check:FAIL:kprobe_test3_result unexpected kprobe_test3_result: actual 0 != expected 1 > > > kprobe_multi_testmod_check:FAIL:kretprobe_test1_result unexpected kretprobe_test1_result: actual 0 != expected 1 > > > kprobe_multi_testmod_check:FAIL:kretprobe_test2_result unexpected kretprobe_test2_result: actual 0 != expected 1 > > > kprobe_multi_testmod_check:FAIL:kretprobe_test3_result unexpected kretprobe_test3_result: actual 0 != expected 1 > > > #126/2 kprobe_multi_testmod_test/testmod_attach_api_addrs > > > test_testmod_attach_api_addrs:PASS:ksym_get_addr_local 0 nsec > > > test_testmod_attach_api_addrs:PASS:ksym_get_addr_local 0 nsec > > > test_testmod_attach_api_addrs:PASS:ksym_get_addr_local 0 nsec > > > test_testmod_attach_api:PASS:fentry_raw_skel_load 0 nsec > > > trigger_module_test_read:PASS:testmod_file_open 0 nsec > > > test_testmod_attach_api:PASS:trigger_read 0 nsec > > > kprobe_multi_testmod_check:FAIL:kprobe_test1_result unexpected kprobe_test1_result: actual 0 != expected 1 > > > kprobe_multi_testmod_check:FAIL:kprobe_test2_result unexpected kprobe_test2_result: actual 0 != expected 1 > > > kprobe_multi_testmod_check:FAIL:kprobe_test3_result unexpected kprobe_test3_result: actual 0 != expected 1 > > > kprobe_multi_testmod_check:FAIL:kretprobe_test1_result unexpected kretprobe_test1_result: actual 0 != expected 1 > > > kprobe_multi_testmod_check:FAIL:kretprobe_test2_result unexpected kretprobe_test2_result: actual 0 != expected 1 > > > kprobe_multi_testmod_check:FAIL:kretprobe_test3_result unexpected kretprobe_test3_result: actual 0 != expected 1 > > > > > > > > > Please note: this email is coming from an unmonitored mailbox. If you have > > > questions or feedback, please reach out to the Meta Kernel CI team at > > > kernel-ci@xxxxxxxx. > > > > > > -- > > Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > -- > Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>
