On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 5:51 PM Jakub Kicinski
<jakub.kicinski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 16 May 2019 11:29:39 +0200, Krzesimir Nowak wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> > > > index ccd896b98cac..bf0da03f593b 100644
> > > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> > > > @@ -825,11 +825,20 @@ static int do_prog_test_run(int fd_prog, bool unpriv, uint32_t expected_val,
> > > > tmp, &size_tmp, &retval, NULL);
> > > > if (unpriv)
> > > > set_admin(false);
> > > > - if (err && errno != 524/*ENOTSUPP*/ && errno != EPERM) {
> > > > - printf("Unexpected bpf_prog_test_run error ");
> > > > - return err;
> > > > + if (err) {
> > > > + switch (errno) {
> > > > + case 524/*ENOTSUPP*/:
> > > > + printf("Did not run the program (not supported) ");
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > + case EPERM:
> > > > + printf("Did not run the program (no permission) ");
> > > > + return 0;
> > >
> > > Perhaps use strerror(errno)?
> >
> > As I said in the commit message, I open-coded those messages because
> > strerror for ENOTSUPP returns "Unknown error 524".
>
> Ah, sorry, missed that. I wonder if that's something worth addressing
> in libc, since the BPF subsystem uses ENOTSUPP a lot.
The "not supported" errno situation seems to be a mess. There is an
ENOTSUP define in libc. ENOTSUP is usually defined to be EOPNOTSUPP
(taken from kernel), which in turn seems to have a different value
(95) than kernel's ENOTSUPP (524). Adding ENOTSUPP (with two Ps) to
libc would only add to the confusion. So it's kind of meh and I guess
people just moved on with workarounds.
--
Kinvolk GmbH | Adalbertstr.6a, 10999 Berlin | tel: +491755589364
Geschäftsführer/Directors: Alban Crequy, Chris Kühl, Iago López Galeiras
Registergericht/Court of registration: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg
Registernummer/Registration number: HRB 171414 B
Ust-ID-Nummer/VAT ID number: DE302207000
