On 12/18/24 22:04, D. Wythe wrote: > On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 05:51:40PM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote: >> On 12/18/24 5:32 AM, D. Wythe wrote: >>> On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 03:23:01AM +0000, bot+bpf-ci@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>>> Dear patch submitter, >>>> >>>> CI has tested the following submission: >>>> Status: FAILURE >>>> Name: [bpf-next,v3,0/5] net/smc: Introduce smc_ops >>>> Patchwork: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=918946&state=* >>>> Matrix: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/12385547644 >>>> >>>> Failed jobs: >>>> test_progs-aarch64-gcc: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/12385547644/job/34572137789 >>>> test_progs_no_alu32-aarch64-gcc: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/12385547644/job/34572137985 >>>> test_progs-s390x-gcc: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/12385547644/job/34572116351 >>>> test_progs_no_alu32-s390x-gcc: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/12385547644/job/34572116670 >>>> test_progs-x86_64-gcc: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/12385547644/job/34572147114 >>>> test_progs_no_alu32-x86_64-gcc: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/12385547644/job/34572147579 >>>> test_progs-x86_64-llvm-17: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/12385547644/job/34572152627 >>>> test_progs_no_alu32-x86_64-llvm-17: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/12385547644/job/34572152400 >>>> test_progs-x86_64-llvm-18: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/12385547644/job/34572134514 >>>> test_progs_cpuv4-x86_64-llvm-18: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/12385547644/job/34572134779 >>>> test_progs_no_alu32-x86_64-llvm-18: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/12385547644/job/34572135179 >>>> >>>> First test_progs failure (test_progs-aarch64-gcc): >>>> #27 bpf_smc >>>> load_smc_module:FAIL:create ipproto_smc unexpected create ipproto_smc: actual -1 < expected 0 >>>> setup for smc test failed, test SKIP: >>> A bit weird. How can I reproduce this test on my own? Also, it seems >>> that I shouldn't use the ASSERT_XX macros in the setup phase, so that it >>> can properly skip. >> In the BPF selftest dir, you could try to repro with vmtest.sh script : >> >> ./vmtest.sh -- ./test_progs -t smc >> >> Potentially tools/testing/selftests/bpf/config* needs to be extended as first step. > Hi Daniel, > > Thanks very much for your prompt. I think I have identified the issue. > > I reproduced this issue by vmtest, and I suspect it may have been > caused by not execute "make modules_install" before executing vmtest > since CONFIG_SMC=m in tools/testing/selftests/bpf/config*; > > [root@localhost linux]$ vmtest -k arch/x86_64/boot/bzImage "modprobe smc;" > => bzImage > ===> Booting > ===> Setting up VM > ===> Running command > modprobe: FATAL: Module smc not found in directory > /lib/modules/6.13.0-rc3-00116-gafe40385f116 > Command failed with exit code: 1 > > When I first run make modules_install and then vmtest, the issue is > resolved! > > [root@localhost linux]$ vmtest -k arch/x86_64/boot/bzImage "cd ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/; ./test_progs -t smc" > => bzImage > ===> Booting > ===> Setting up VM > ===> Running command > [ 1.829268] bpf_testmod: loading out-of-tree module taints kernel. > [ 1.906274] NET: Registered PF_SMC protocol family > [ 1.906603] smc: adding smcd device loopback-ism > net.smc.ops = linkcheck > #27/1 bpf_smc/topo:OK > #27 bpf_smc:OK > Summary: 1/1 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED > > Of course, I don't think it's necessarily appropriate to have the CI > modify this, so I decided to change CONFIG_SMC=m to CONFIG_SMC=y in the > config, which also solves the problem. > > What do you think? [cc bpf list] CONFIG_SMC=y makes sense to me. Thanks, (Other) Daniel
