On Sat, Feb 04, 2023 at 01:21:13AM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 8:23 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > hi, > > I noticed several times in discussions that we should move test kfuncs > > into kernel module, now perhaps even more pressing with all the kfunc > > effort. This patchset moves all the test kfuncs into bpf_testmod. > > > > I added bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod_kfunc.h header that is shared between > > bpf_testmod kernel module and BPF programs, which brings some difficulties > > with __ksym define. But I'm not sure having separate headers for BPF > > programs and for kernel module would be better. > > > > This patchset also needs: > > 74bc3a5acc82 bpf: Add missing btf_put to register_btf_id_dtor_kfuncs > > which is only in bpf/master now. > > I thought you've added this patch to CI, > but cb_refs is still failing on s390... the CI now fails for s390 with messages like: 2023-02-04T07:04:32.5185267Z RES: address of kernel function bpf_kfunc_call_test_fail1 is out of range so now that we have test kfuncs in the module, the 's32 imm' value of the bpf call instructions can overflow when the offset between module and kernel is greater than 2GB ... as explained in the commit that added the verifier check: 8cbf062a250e bpf: Reject kfunc calls that overflow insn->imm not sure we can do anything about that on bpf side.. cc-ing s390 list and Ilya for ideas/thoughts maybe we could make bpf_testmod in-tree module and compile it as module just for some archs thoughts? thanks, jirka
