Re: selftest/bpf/test_verifier_log fails on v5.11-rc5

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 2:15 PM Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 5:42 PM Alexei Starovoitov
> <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 12:54 PM Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello all,
> > >
> > > My apologies if this has already been reported, but I didn't see
> > > anything obvious with a quick search through the archives.  I have a
> > > test program that behaves very similar to the existing
> > > selftest/bpf/test_verifier_log test that has started failing this week
> > > with v5.11-rc5; it ran without problem last week on v5.11-rc4.  Is
> > > this a known problem with a fix already, or is this something new?
> > >
> > > % uname -r
> > > 5.11.0-0.rc5.134.fc34.x86_64
> > > % pwd
> > > /.../linux/tools/testing/selftests/bpf
> > > % git log --oneline | head -n 1
> > > 6ee1d745b7c9 Linux 5.11-rc5
> > > % make test_verifier_log
> > >   ...
> > >   BINARY   test_verifier_log
> > > % ./test_verifier_log
> > > Test log_level 0...
> > > Test log_size < 128...
> > > Test log_buff = NULL...
> > > Test oversized buffer...
> > > ERROR: Program load returned: ret:-1/errno:22, expected ret:-1/errno:13
> >
> > Thanks for reporting.
> > bpf and bpf-next don't have this issue. Not sure what changed.
>
> I haven't had a chance to look into this any further, but Ondrej
> Mosnacek (CC'd) found the following today:
>
> "So I was trying to debug this further and I think I've identified what
> triggers the problem. It seems that the BTF debuginfo generation
> became broken with CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_DWARF4=n somewhere between -rc4
> and -rc5. It also seems to depend on a recent (Fedora Rawhide) version
> of some component of the build system (GCC, probably), because the
> problem disappeared when I tried to build the "bad" kernel in F33
> buildroot instead of Rawhide."

I see. There were fixes for dwarf and btf, but I lost the track.
I believe it was a combination of gcc bug that was worked around in pahole.
Arnaldo, Jiri, Andrii,
what is the status? Did all fixes land in pahole?



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux