Hi, On 11/3/2024 2:04 PM, Byeonguk Jeong wrote: > Hi, > > The selftest "verifier_bits_iter/bad words" has been failed with > retval 115, while I did not touched anything but a comment. > > Do you have any idea why it failed? I am not sure whether it indicates > any bugs in the kernel. > > Best, > Byeonguk Sorry for the inconvenience. It seems the test case "verifier_bits_iter/bad words" is flaky. It may fail randomly, such as in [1]. I think calling bpf_probe_read_kernel_common() on 3GB addr under s390 host may succeed and the content of the memory address will decide whether the test case will succeed or not. Do not know the reason why reading 3GB address succeeds under s390. Hope to get some insight from Ilya. I think we could fix the failure first by using NULL as the address of bad words just like null_pointer test case does. Will merge the test in bad_words into the null_pointer case. [1]: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/11625956355/job/32377297736 > > On Sun, Nov 03, 2024 at 04:41:26AM +0000, bot+bpf-ci@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> Dear patch submitter, >> >> CI has tested the following submission: >> Status: FAILURE >> Name: [bpf] selftests/bpf: Add a copyright notice to lpm_trie_map_get_next_key >> Patchwork: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=905730&state=* >> Matrix: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/11648453401 >> >> Failed jobs: >> test_progs_no_alu32-s390x-gcc: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/11648453401/job/32434970670 >> >> First test_progs failure (test_progs_no_alu32-s390x-gcc): >> #433 verifier_bits_iter >> tester_init:PASS:tester_log_buf 0 nsec >> process_subtest:PASS:obj_open_mem 0 nsec >> process_subtest:PASS:specs_alloc 0 nsec >> #433/13 verifier_bits_iter/bad words >> run_subtest:PASS:obj_open_mem 0 nsec >> run_subtest:PASS:unexpected_load_failure 0 nsec >> do_prog_test_run:PASS:bpf_prog_test_run 0 nsec >> run_subtest:FAIL:1035 Unexpected retval: 115 != 0 >> >> >> 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. > .
