On Fri, 16 Sept 2022 at 22:58, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 9/5/22 9:33 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > > Stanislav suggested[0] that these small refactorings could be split out from the > > XDP queueing RFC series and merged separately. The first change is a small > > repacking of struct softnet_data, the others change the BPF call sites to > > support full 64-bit values as arguments to bpf_redirect_map() and as the return > > value of a BPF program, relying on the fact that BPF registers are always 64-bit > > wide to maintain backwards compatibility. > > Looks like might still be issues on s390 [0] around retval checking, e.g.: > > [...] > #122 pe_preserve_elems:FAIL > test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:parse_cpu_mask_file 0 nsec > test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec > test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:skel_attach 0 nsec > test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:open /proc/self/comm 0 nsec > test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:task rename 0 nsec > test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:check_count 0 nsec > test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:check_on_cpu 0 nsec > test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:test_run should fail for too small ctx 0 nsec > test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:test_run 0 nsec > test_raw_tp_test_run:FAIL:check_retval unexpected check_retval: actual 0 != expected 26796 > test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:test_run_opts 0 nsec > test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:check_on_cpu 0 nsec > test_raw_tp_test_run:FAIL:check_retval unexpected check_retval: actual 0 != expected 26796 > test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:test_run_opts 0 nsec > test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:check_on_cpu 0 nsec > test_raw_tp_test_run:FAIL:check_retval unexpected check_retval: actual 0 != expected 26796 > test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:test_run_opts should fail with ENXIO 0 nsec > test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:test_run_opts_fail 0 nsec > test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:test_run_opts should fail with EINVAL 0 nsec > test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:test_run_opts_fail 0 nsec > [...] > Thanks, I'll take a look. > Thanks, > Daniel > > [0] https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/3059535631/jobs/4939404438
