On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 7:33 AM Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/6/20 10:18 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 9:31 PM Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 10/6/20 6:23 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 5:31 PM KP Singh <kpsingh@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I noticed that test_local_storage is broken due to a BTF error at
> >>>> bpf-next [67ed375530e2 ("samples: bpf: Driver interrupt statistics in
> >>>> xdpsock")]
> >>>>
> >>>> ./test_progs -t test_local_storage
> >>>> libbpf: prog 'socket_post_create': relo #0: parsing [28] struct socket + 0:0.1 2
> >>>
> >>> This line is truncated, btw, please make sure you post the entire
> >>> output next time.
I just ran this again and it does not seem like it's truncated:
./test_progs -t test_local_storage
libbpf: prog 'socket_post_create': relo #0: parsing [28] struct socket + 0:0.1 2
libbpf: prog 'socket_post_create': relo #0: failed to relocate: -22
libbpf: failed to perform CO-RE relocations: -22
libbpf: failed to load object 'local_storage'
libbpf: failed to load BPF skeleton 'local_storage': -22
test_test_local_storage:FAIL:skel_load lsm skeleton failed
Am I missing something?
> >>>
> >>> But, this seems like a bug in Clang, it produced invalid access index
> >>> string "0:0.1", there shouldn't be any other separator except ':' in
> >>> those strings.
> >>>
> >>> Yonghong, can you please take a look? This seems to be a very recent
> >>> regression, I had to update to
> >>> 6c7d713cf5d9bb188f1e73452a256386f0288bf7 sha from not-too-outdated
> >>> version to repro this.
> >>
> >> Sorry. This indeed is a llvm regression. The guilty patch is
> >> https://reviews.llvm.org/D88855 which adds NPM (new pass manager)
> >> support for BPF. The patch just merged this morning, thanks for catching
> >> the bug so fast. Since NPM is not used by default and the code
> >> refactoring looks okay, so I did not run selftests. But, yah, it does
> >> change some semantics of the code...
> >
> > but llvm tests were run, of course.
> > Looks like we need to add more of them, so they can gate the landing.
>
> Right, just added two more tests to gate this particular kind of
> failure. Also just pushed a new version which is simpler compared to
> previous version.
>
> >
> >> I just put a fix at https://reviews.llvm.org/D88942 .
> >> Hopefully to merge soon.
> >
> > Thanks for the quick fix!
Thank you so much!
> >
