On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 at 18:04, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 04:10:12PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 11:21:42AM +0200, Brendan Jackman wrote: > > > On Sun, 27 Jun 2021 at 17:34, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 01:50:02PM +0000, Brendan Jackman wrote: [snip] > > > Hmm, is the test prog from atomic_bounds.c getting JITed there (my > > > dumb guess at what '0xc0000000119efb30 (unreliable)' means)? That > > > shouldn't happen - should get 'eBPF filter atomic op code %02x (@%d) > > > unsupported\n' in dmesg instead. I wonder if I missed something in > > > commit 91c960b0056 (bpf: Rename BPF_XADD and prepare to encode other > > I see that for all the other atomics tests: > > [root@ibm-p9z-07-lp1 bpf]# ./test_verifier 21 > #21/p BPF_ATOMIC_AND without fetch FAIL > Failed to load prog 'Unknown error 524'! > verification time 32 usec > stack depth 8 > processed 10 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 0 total_states 1 peak_states 1 mark_read 1 > Summary: 0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 2 FAILED Hm that's also not good - failure to JIT shouldn't mean failure to load. Are there other test_verifier failures or is it just the atomics ones? > console: > > [ 51.850952] eBPF filter atomic op code db (@2) unsupported > [ 51.851134] eBPF filter atomic op code db (@2) unsupported > > > [root@ibm-p9z-07-lp1 bpf]# ./test_verifier 22 > #22/u BPF_ATOMIC_AND with fetch FAIL > Failed to load prog 'Unknown error 524'! > verification time 38 usec > stack depth 8 > processed 14 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 0 total_states 1 peak_states 1 mark_read 1 > #22/p BPF_ATOMIC_AND with fetch FAIL > Failed to load prog 'Unknown error 524'! > verification time 26 usec > stack depth 8 > processed 14 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 0 total_states 1 peak_states 1 mark_read 1 > > console: > [ 223.231420] eBPF filter atomic op code db (@3) unsupported > [ 223.231596] eBPF filter atomic op code db (@3) unsupported > > ... > > > but no such console output for: > > [root@ibm-p9z-07-lp1 bpf]# ./test_verifier 24 > #24/u BPF_ATOMIC bounds propagation, mem->reg OK > > > > > atomics in .imm). Any idea if this test was ever passing on PowerPC? > > > > > > > hum, I guess not.. will check > > nope, it locks up the same: Do you mean it locks up at commit 91c960b0056 too?
