On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 10:58:45AM -0400, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
>
>
> On 2023-07-18 09:52, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 2023-07-18 at 15:23 +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 03:31:25PM +0300, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2023-07-18 at 01:57 +0300, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > Still, when I cherry-pick [0,1,2,3] `./test_progs -a setget_sockopt` is failing.
> > > > > I'll investigate this failure but don't think I'll finish today.
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > >
> > > > > Alternatively, if the goal is to minimize amount of changes, we can
> > > > > disable or modify the 'precise: ST insn causing spi > allocated_stack'.
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > >
> > > > > Commits (in chronological order):
> > > > > [0] be2ef8161572 ("bpf: allow precision tracking for programs with subprogs")
> > > > > [1] f63181b6ae79 ("bpf: stop setting precise in current state")
> > > > > [2] 7a830b53c17b ("bpf: aggressively forget precise markings during state checkpointing")
> > > > > [3] 4f999b767769 ("selftests/bpf: make test_align selftest more robust")
> > > > > [4] 07d90c72efbe ("Merge branch 'BPF verifier precision tracking improvements'")
> > > > > [5] ecdf985d7615 ("bpf: track immediate values written to stack by BPF_ST instruction")
> > > >
> > > > I made a mistake, while resolving merge conflict for [0] yesterday.
> > > > After correction the `./test_progs -a setget_sockopt` passes.
> > > > I also noted that the following tests fail on v6.1.36:
> > > >
> > > > ./test_progs -a sk_assign,fexit_bpf2bpf
> > > >
> > > > These tests are fixed by back-porting the following upstream commits:
> > > > - 7ce878ca81bc ("selftests/bpf: Fix sk_assign on s390x")
> > > > - 63d78b7e8ca2 ("selftests/bpf: Workaround verification failure for fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace_return_code")
> > > >
> > > > I pushed modified version of v6.1.36 to my github account, it has
> > > > test_verifier, test_progs, test_progs-no_alu32 and test_maps passing
> > > > (on my x86 setup):
> > > >
> > > > https://github.com/eddyz87/bpf/commits/v6.1.36-with-fixes
> > > >
> > > > Do you need any additional actions from my side?
> > >
> > > I don't understand, what can I do with a github link? Can you send us
> > > the patches backported so we can apply them to the stable tree?
> >
> > Sorry, I'm not familiar with procedure for stable tree patches or
> > who decides what's being picked.
>
> I'm by no means an authority here, but I'll try to help with what I would
> do myself.
>
> > Looks like this situation is "Option 3" from [1], rigth?
>
> Right.
>
> > After reading that page I'm not sure:
> > - can I bundle all the necessary commits as a patch-set?
>
> Yes.
>
> > - a few commits need merging, others could be cherry-picked,
> > is it possible to submit all of them with [ Upstream commit ... ] marks?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Also, as I wrote above, there are two possible solutions:
> > - backport above mentioned patches
> > - adjust the test log
>
> I think we want to avoid deviating from upstream (Linus tree), but I'm not
> sure if there are valid exceptions.
backporting the mentioned patches is best, can someone send them to us
in email so that we can apply them?
thanks,
greg k-h
