Enable non-atomic allocations in local storage #168
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Master branch: 5a5c11e |
|
Master branch: 6091197 |
kernel-patches-bot
force-pushed
the
series/624493=>bpf-next
branch
from
6ef3352 to
4598aff
Compare
|
Master branch: 6091197 |
kernel-patches-bot
force-pushed
the
series/624493=>bpf-next
branch
from
4598aff to
aaa577e
Compare
|
Master branch: 63cc8e2 |
kernel-patches-bot
force-pushed
the
series/624493=>bpf-next
branch
from
aaa577e to
1181ac6
Compare
|
Master branch: 63cc8e2 |
kernel-patches-bot
force-pushed
the
series/624493=>bpf-next
branch
from
1181ac6 to
20c5fe8
Compare
|
Master branch: 08063b4 |
kernel-patches-bot
force-pushed
the
series/624493=>bpf-next
branch
from
20c5fe8 to
da91d0f
Compare
|
Master branch: 9492450 |
kernel-patches-bot
force-pushed
the
series/624493=>bpf-next
branch
from
da91d0f to
06f168e
Compare
Currently, local storage memory can only be allocated atomically (GFP_ATOMIC). This restriction is too strict for sleepable bpf programs. In this patch, the verifier detects whether the program is sleepable, and passes the corresponding GFP_KERNEL or GFP_ATOMIC flag as a 5th argument to bpf_task/sk/inode_storage_get. This flag will propagate down to the local storage functions that allocate memory. Please note that bpf_task/sk/inode_storage_update_elem functions are invoked by userspace applications through syscalls. Preemption is disabled before bpf_task/sk/inode_storage_update_elem is called, which means they will always have to allocate memory atomically. Signed-off-by: Joanne Koong <joannelkoong@gmail.com> Acked-by: KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org> Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
…storage This patch adds a few calls to the existing local storage selftest to test that we can associate multiple elements with the local storage. The sleepable program's call to bpf_sk_storage_get with sk_storage_map2 will lead to an allocation of a new selem under the GFP_KERNEL flag. Signed-off-by: Joanne Koong <joannelkoong@gmail.com>
|
Master branch: a8fee96 |
kernel-patches-bot
force-pushed
the
series/624493=>bpf-next
branch
from
06f168e to
8f3c29e
Compare
|
At least one diff in series https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=624493 irrelevant now. Closing PR. |
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 22, 2023
The test case creates 4 threads and then pins these 4 threads in CPU 0. These 4 threads will run different bpf program through bpf_prog_test_run_opts() and these bpf program will use bpf_obj_new() and bpf_obj_drop() to allocate and free local kptrs concurrently. Under preemptible kernel, bpf_obj_new() and bpf_obj_drop() may preempt each other, bpf_obj_new() may return NULL and the test will fail before the fixes are applied as shown below: test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:open_and_load 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:attach 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:no test prog 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:no test prog 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:no test prog 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:no test prog 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:pthread_create 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:pthread_create 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:pthread_create 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:pthread_create 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:run prog err 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:run prog err 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:run prog err 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:run prog err 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:FAIL:ENOMEM unexpected ENOMEM: got TRUE #168 preempted_bpf_ma_op:FAIL Summary: 0/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 1 FAILED Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 22, 2023
The test case creates 4 threads and then pins these 4 threads in CPU 0. These 4 threads will run different bpf program through bpf_prog_test_run_opts() and these bpf program will use bpf_obj_new() and bpf_obj_drop() to allocate and free local kptrs concurrently. Under preemptible kernel, bpf_obj_new() and bpf_obj_drop() may preempt each other, bpf_obj_new() may return NULL and the test will fail before the fixes are applied as shown below: test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:open_and_load 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:attach 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:no test prog 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:no test prog 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:no test prog 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:no test prog 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:pthread_create 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:pthread_create 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:pthread_create 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:pthread_create 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:run prog err 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:run prog err 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:run prog err 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:run prog err 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:FAIL:ENOMEM unexpected ENOMEM: got TRUE #168 preempted_bpf_ma_op:FAIL Summary: 0/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 1 FAILED Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 22, 2023
The test case creates 4 threads and then pins these 4 threads in CPU 0. These 4 threads will run different bpf program through bpf_prog_test_run_opts() and these bpf program will use bpf_obj_new() and bpf_obj_drop() to allocate and free local kptrs concurrently. Under preemptible kernel, bpf_obj_new() and bpf_obj_drop() may preempt each other, bpf_obj_new() may return NULL and the test will fail before the fixes are applied as shown below: test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:open_and_load 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:attach 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:no test prog 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:no test prog 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:no test prog 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:no test prog 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:pthread_create 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:pthread_create 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:pthread_create 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:pthread_create 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:run prog err 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:run prog err 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:run prog err 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:run prog err 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:FAIL:ENOMEM unexpected ENOMEM: got TRUE #168 preempted_bpf_ma_op:FAIL Summary: 0/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 1 FAILED Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 22, 2023
The test case creates 4 threads and then pins these 4 threads in CPU 0. These 4 threads will run different bpf program through bpf_prog_test_run_opts() and these bpf program will use bpf_obj_new() and bpf_obj_drop() to allocate and free local kptrs concurrently. Under preemptible kernel, bpf_obj_new() and bpf_obj_drop() may preempt each other, bpf_obj_new() may return NULL and the test will fail before the fixes are applied as shown below: test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:open_and_load 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:attach 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:no test prog 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:no test prog 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:no test prog 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:no test prog 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:pthread_create 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:pthread_create 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:pthread_create 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:pthread_create 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:run prog err 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:run prog err 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:run prog err 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:run prog err 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:FAIL:ENOMEM unexpected ENOMEM: got TRUE #168 preempted_bpf_ma_op:FAIL Summary: 0/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 1 FAILED Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 1, 2023
The test case creates 4 threads and then pins these 4 threads in CPU 0. These 4 threads will run different bpf program through bpf_prog_test_run_opts() and these bpf program will use bpf_obj_new() and bpf_obj_drop() to allocate and free local kptrs concurrently. Under preemptible kernel, bpf_obj_new() and bpf_obj_drop() may preempt each other, bpf_obj_new() may return NULL and the test will fail before applying these fixes as shown below: test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:open_and_load 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:attach 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:no test prog 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:no test prog 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:no test prog 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:no test prog 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:pthread_create 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:pthread_create 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:pthread_create 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:pthread_create 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:run prog err 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:run prog err 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:run prog err 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:run prog err 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:FAIL:ENOMEM unexpected ENOMEM: got TRUE #168 preempted_bpf_ma_op:FAIL Summary: 0/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 1 FAILED Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 1, 2023
The test case creates 4 threads and then pins these 4 threads in CPU 0. These 4 threads will run different bpf program through bpf_prog_test_run_opts() and these bpf program will use bpf_obj_new() and bpf_obj_drop() to allocate and free local kptrs concurrently. Under preemptible kernel, bpf_obj_new() and bpf_obj_drop() may preempt each other, bpf_obj_new() may return NULL and the test will fail before applying these fixes as shown below: test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:open_and_load 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:attach 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:no test prog 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:no test prog 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:no test prog 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:no test prog 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:pthread_create 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:pthread_create 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:pthread_create 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:pthread_create 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:run prog err 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:run prog err 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:run prog err 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:run prog err 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:FAIL:ENOMEM unexpected ENOMEM: got TRUE #168 preempted_bpf_ma_op:FAIL Summary: 0/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 1 FAILED Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 4, 2023
The test case creates 4 threads and then pins these 4 threads in CPU 0. These 4 threads will run different bpf program through bpf_prog_test_run_opts() and these bpf program will use bpf_obj_new() and bpf_obj_drop() to allocate and free local kptrs concurrently. Under preemptible kernel, bpf_obj_new() and bpf_obj_drop() may preempt each other, bpf_obj_new() may return NULL and the test will fail before applying these fixes as shown below: test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:open_and_load 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:attach 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:no test prog 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:no test prog 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:no test prog 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:no test prog 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:pthread_create 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:pthread_create 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:pthread_create 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:pthread_create 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:run prog err 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:run prog err 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:run prog err 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:run prog err 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:FAIL:ENOMEM unexpected ENOMEM: got TRUE #168 preempted_bpf_ma_op:FAIL Summary: 0/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 1 FAILED Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 6, 2023
The test case creates 4 threads and then pins these 4 threads in CPU 0. These 4 threads will run different bpf program through bpf_prog_test_run_opts() and these bpf program will use bpf_obj_new() and bpf_obj_drop() to allocate and free local kptrs concurrently. Under preemptible kernel, bpf_obj_new() and bpf_obj_drop() may preempt each other, bpf_obj_new() may return NULL and the test will fail before applying these fixes as shown below: test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:open_and_load 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:attach 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:no test prog 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:no test prog 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:no test prog 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:no test prog 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:pthread_create 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:pthread_create 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:pthread_create 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:pthread_create 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:run prog err 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:run prog err 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:run prog err 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:run prog err 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:FAIL:ENOMEM unexpected ENOMEM: got TRUE #168 preempted_bpf_ma_op:FAIL Summary: 0/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 1 FAILED Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230901111954.1804721-4-houtao@huaweicloud.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 8, 2023
The test case creates 4 threads and then pins these 4 threads in CPU 0. These 4 threads will run different bpf program through bpf_prog_test_run_opts() and these bpf program will use bpf_obj_new() and bpf_obj_drop() to allocate and free local kptrs concurrently. Under preemptible kernel, bpf_obj_new() and bpf_obj_drop() may preempt each other, bpf_obj_new() may return NULL and the test will fail before applying these fixes as shown below: test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:open_and_load 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:attach 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:no test prog 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:no test prog 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:no test prog 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:no test prog 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:pthread_create 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:pthread_create 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:pthread_create 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:pthread_create 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:run prog err 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:run prog err 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:run prog err 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:PASS:run prog err 0 nsec test_preempted_bpf_ma_op:FAIL:ENOMEM unexpected ENOMEM: got TRUE #168 preempted_bpf_ma_op:FAIL Summary: 0/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 1 FAILED Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230901111954.1804721-4-houtao@huaweicloud.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 4, 2024
There are still some "ENOTSUPP" (-524) errors left when running BPF selftests on a Loongarch platform since ASSERT_GE() are used there to check the return values, not ASSERT_OK(): ''' test_bpf_cookie:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec #17/1 bpf_cookie/kprobe:OK #17/2 bpf_cookie/multi_kprobe_link_api:OK #17/3 bpf_cookie/multi_kprobe_attach_api:OK #17/4 bpf_cookie/uprobe:OK #17/5 bpf_cookie/multi_uprobe_attach_api:OK #17/6 bpf_cookie/tracepoint:OK #17/7 bpf_cookie/perf_event:OK tracing_subtest:FAIL:fentry.link_create unexpected fentry.link_create: \ actual -524 < expected 0 #17/8 bpf_cookie/trampoline:FAIL lsm_subtest:FAIL:lsm.link_create unexpected lsm.link_create: \ actual -524 < expected 0 #17/9 bpf_cookie/lsm:FAIL #17/10 bpf_cookie/tp_btf:OK #17/11 bpf_cookie/raw_tp:OK #17 bpf_cookie:FAIL ... ... test_module_fentry_shadow:PASS:load_vmlinux_btf 0 nsec test_module_fentry_shadow:PASS:get_bpf_testmod_btf_fd 0 nsec test_module_fentry_shadow:PASS:btf_get_from_fd 0 nsec test_module_fentry_shadow:PASS:btf_find_by_name 0 nsec test_module_fentry_shadow:PASS:btf_find_by_name 0 nsec test_module_fentry_shadow:PASS:bpf_prog_load 0 nsec test_module_fentry_shadow:FAIL:bpf_link_create unexpected \ bpf_link_create: actual -524 < expected 0 #168 module_fentry_shadow:FAIL ''' Just like in ASSERT_OK(), this patch skips ENOTSUPP (524) and ENOTSUP (95) in ASSERT_GT() too. With this change, the new output of these selftests look like: ''' #17/1 bpf_cookie/kprobe:OK #17/2 bpf_cookie/multi_kprobe_link_api:OK #17/3 bpf_cookie/multi_kprobe_attach_api:OK #17/4 bpf_cookie/uprobe:OK #17/5 bpf_cookie/multi_uprobe_attach_api:OK #17/6 bpf_cookie/tracepoint:OK #17/7 bpf_cookie/perf_event:OK #17/8 bpf_cookie/trampoline:SKIP #17/9 bpf_cookie/lsm:SKIP #17/10 bpf_cookie/tp_btf:SKIP #17/11 bpf_cookie/raw_tp:SKIP #17 bpf_cookie:OK (SKIP: 4/11) ... ... #168 module_fentry_shadow:SKIP ''' Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 5, 2024
There are still some "ENOTSUPP" (-524) errors left when running BPF selftests on a Loongarch platform since ASSERT_GE() are used there to check the return values, not ASSERT_OK(): ''' test_bpf_cookie:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec #17/1 bpf_cookie/kprobe:OK #17/2 bpf_cookie/multi_kprobe_link_api:OK #17/3 bpf_cookie/multi_kprobe_attach_api:OK #17/4 bpf_cookie/uprobe:OK #17/5 bpf_cookie/multi_uprobe_attach_api:OK #17/6 bpf_cookie/tracepoint:OK #17/7 bpf_cookie/perf_event:OK tracing_subtest:FAIL:fentry.link_create unexpected fentry.link_create: \ actual -524 < expected 0 #17/8 bpf_cookie/trampoline:FAIL lsm_subtest:FAIL:lsm.link_create unexpected lsm.link_create: \ actual -524 < expected 0 #17/9 bpf_cookie/lsm:FAIL #17/10 bpf_cookie/tp_btf:OK #17/11 bpf_cookie/raw_tp:OK #17 bpf_cookie:FAIL ... ... test_module_fentry_shadow:PASS:load_vmlinux_btf 0 nsec test_module_fentry_shadow:PASS:get_bpf_testmod_btf_fd 0 nsec test_module_fentry_shadow:PASS:btf_get_from_fd 0 nsec test_module_fentry_shadow:PASS:btf_find_by_name 0 nsec test_module_fentry_shadow:PASS:btf_find_by_name 0 nsec test_module_fentry_shadow:PASS:bpf_prog_load 0 nsec test_module_fentry_shadow:FAIL:bpf_link_create unexpected \ bpf_link_create: actual -524 < expected 0 #168 module_fentry_shadow:FAIL ''' Just like in ASSERT_OK(), this patch uses test_progs_get_error() helper to skip ENOTSUPP (524) and ENOTSUP (95) in ASSERT_GT() too. With this change, the new output of these selftests look like: ''' #17/1 bpf_cookie/kprobe:OK #17/2 bpf_cookie/multi_kprobe_link_api:OK #17/3 bpf_cookie/multi_kprobe_attach_api:OK #17/4 bpf_cookie/uprobe:OK #17/5 bpf_cookie/multi_uprobe_attach_api:OK #17/6 bpf_cookie/tracepoint:OK #17/7 bpf_cookie/perf_event:OK #17/8 bpf_cookie/trampoline:SKIP #17/9 bpf_cookie/lsm:SKIP #17/10 bpf_cookie/tp_btf:SKIP #17/11 bpf_cookie/raw_tp:SKIP #17 bpf_cookie:OK (SKIP: 4/11) ... ... #168 module_fentry_shadow:SKIP ''' Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 8, 2024
There are still some "ENOTSUPP" (-524) errors left when running BPF selftests on a Loongarch platform since ASSERT_GE() are used there to check the return values, not ASSERT_OK(): ''' test_bpf_cookie:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec #17/1 bpf_cookie/kprobe:OK #17/2 bpf_cookie/multi_kprobe_link_api:OK #17/3 bpf_cookie/multi_kprobe_attach_api:OK #17/4 bpf_cookie/uprobe:OK #17/5 bpf_cookie/multi_uprobe_attach_api:OK #17/6 bpf_cookie/tracepoint:OK #17/7 bpf_cookie/perf_event:OK tracing_subtest:FAIL:fentry.link_create unexpected fentry.link_create: \ actual -524 < expected 0 #17/8 bpf_cookie/trampoline:FAIL lsm_subtest:FAIL:lsm.link_create unexpected lsm.link_create: \ actual -524 < expected 0 #17/9 bpf_cookie/lsm:FAIL #17/10 bpf_cookie/tp_btf:OK #17/11 bpf_cookie/raw_tp:OK #17 bpf_cookie:FAIL ... ... test_module_fentry_shadow:PASS:load_vmlinux_btf 0 nsec test_module_fentry_shadow:PASS:get_bpf_testmod_btf_fd 0 nsec test_module_fentry_shadow:PASS:btf_get_from_fd 0 nsec test_module_fentry_shadow:PASS:btf_find_by_name 0 nsec test_module_fentry_shadow:PASS:btf_find_by_name 0 nsec test_module_fentry_shadow:PASS:bpf_prog_load 0 nsec test_module_fentry_shadow:FAIL:bpf_link_create unexpected \ bpf_link_create: actual -524 < expected 0 #168 module_fentry_shadow:FAIL ''' Just like in ASSERT_OK(), this patch uses test_progs_get_error() helper to skip ENOTSUPP (524) and ENOTSUP (95) in ASSERT_GT() too. With this change, the new output of these selftests look like: ''' #17/1 bpf_cookie/kprobe:OK #17/2 bpf_cookie/multi_kprobe_link_api:OK #17/3 bpf_cookie/multi_kprobe_attach_api:OK #17/4 bpf_cookie/uprobe:OK #17/5 bpf_cookie/multi_uprobe_attach_api:OK #17/6 bpf_cookie/tracepoint:OK #17/7 bpf_cookie/perf_event:OK #17/8 bpf_cookie/trampoline:SKIP #17/9 bpf_cookie/lsm:SKIP #17/10 bpf_cookie/tp_btf:SKIP #17/11 bpf_cookie/raw_tp:SKIP #17 bpf_cookie:OK (SKIP: 4/11) ... ... #168 module_fentry_shadow:SKIP ''' Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 8, 2024
There are still some "ENOTSUPP" (-524) errors left when running BPF selftests on a Loongarch platform since ASSERT_GE() are used there to check the return values, not ASSERT_OK(): ''' test_bpf_cookie:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec #17/1 bpf_cookie/kprobe:OK #17/2 bpf_cookie/multi_kprobe_link_api:OK #17/3 bpf_cookie/multi_kprobe_attach_api:OK #17/4 bpf_cookie/uprobe:OK #17/5 bpf_cookie/multi_uprobe_attach_api:OK #17/6 bpf_cookie/tracepoint:OK #17/7 bpf_cookie/perf_event:OK tracing_subtest:FAIL:fentry.link_create unexpected fentry.link_create: \ actual -524 < expected 0 #17/8 bpf_cookie/trampoline:FAIL lsm_subtest:FAIL:lsm.link_create unexpected lsm.link_create: \ actual -524 < expected 0 #17/9 bpf_cookie/lsm:FAIL #17/10 bpf_cookie/tp_btf:OK #17/11 bpf_cookie/raw_tp:OK #17 bpf_cookie:FAIL ... ... test_module_fentry_shadow:PASS:load_vmlinux_btf 0 nsec test_module_fentry_shadow:PASS:get_bpf_testmod_btf_fd 0 nsec test_module_fentry_shadow:PASS:btf_get_from_fd 0 nsec test_module_fentry_shadow:PASS:btf_find_by_name 0 nsec test_module_fentry_shadow:PASS:btf_find_by_name 0 nsec test_module_fentry_shadow:PASS:bpf_prog_load 0 nsec test_module_fentry_shadow:FAIL:bpf_link_create unexpected \ bpf_link_create: actual -524 < expected 0 #168 module_fentry_shadow:FAIL ''' Just like in ASSERT_OK(), this patch uses test_progs_get_error() helper to skip ENOTSUPP (524) and ENOTSUP (95) in ASSERT_GT() too. With this change, the new output of these selftests look like: ''' #17/1 bpf_cookie/kprobe:OK #17/2 bpf_cookie/multi_kprobe_link_api:OK #17/3 bpf_cookie/multi_kprobe_attach_api:OK #17/4 bpf_cookie/uprobe:OK #17/5 bpf_cookie/multi_uprobe_attach_api:OK #17/6 bpf_cookie/tracepoint:OK #17/7 bpf_cookie/perf_event:OK #17/8 bpf_cookie/trampoline:SKIP #17/9 bpf_cookie/lsm:SKIP #17/10 bpf_cookie/tp_btf:SKIP #17/11 bpf_cookie/raw_tp:SKIP #17 bpf_cookie:OK (SKIP: 4/11) ... ... #168 module_fentry_shadow:SKIP ''' Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 8, 2024
There are still some "ENOTSUPP" (-524) errors left when running BPF selftests on a Loongarch platform since ASSERT_GE() are used there to check the return values, not ASSERT_OK(): ''' test_bpf_cookie:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec #17/1 bpf_cookie/kprobe:OK #17/2 bpf_cookie/multi_kprobe_link_api:OK #17/3 bpf_cookie/multi_kprobe_attach_api:OK #17/4 bpf_cookie/uprobe:OK #17/5 bpf_cookie/multi_uprobe_attach_api:OK #17/6 bpf_cookie/tracepoint:OK #17/7 bpf_cookie/perf_event:OK tracing_subtest:FAIL:fentry.link_create unexpected fentry.link_create: \ actual -524 < expected 0 #17/8 bpf_cookie/trampoline:FAIL lsm_subtest:FAIL:lsm.link_create unexpected lsm.link_create: \ actual -524 < expected 0 #17/9 bpf_cookie/lsm:FAIL #17/10 bpf_cookie/tp_btf:OK #17/11 bpf_cookie/raw_tp:OK #17 bpf_cookie:FAIL ... ... test_module_fentry_shadow:PASS:load_vmlinux_btf 0 nsec test_module_fentry_shadow:PASS:get_bpf_testmod_btf_fd 0 nsec test_module_fentry_shadow:PASS:btf_get_from_fd 0 nsec test_module_fentry_shadow:PASS:btf_find_by_name 0 nsec test_module_fentry_shadow:PASS:btf_find_by_name 0 nsec test_module_fentry_shadow:PASS:bpf_prog_load 0 nsec test_module_fentry_shadow:FAIL:bpf_link_create unexpected \ bpf_link_create: actual -524 < expected 0 #168 module_fentry_shadow:FAIL ''' Just like in ASSERT_OK(), this patch uses test_progs_get_error() helper to skip ENOTSUPP (524) and ENOTSUP (95) in ASSERT_GT() too. With this change, the new output of these selftests look like: ''' #17/1 bpf_cookie/kprobe:OK #17/2 bpf_cookie/multi_kprobe_link_api:OK #17/3 bpf_cookie/multi_kprobe_attach_api:OK #17/4 bpf_cookie/uprobe:OK #17/5 bpf_cookie/multi_uprobe_attach_api:OK #17/6 bpf_cookie/tracepoint:OK #17/7 bpf_cookie/perf_event:OK #17/8 bpf_cookie/trampoline:SKIP #17/9 bpf_cookie/lsm:SKIP #17/10 bpf_cookie/tp_btf:SKIP #17/11 bpf_cookie/raw_tp:SKIP #17 bpf_cookie:OK (SKIP: 4/11) ... ... #168 module_fentry_shadow:SKIP ''' Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 8, 2024
There are still some "ENOTSUPP" (-524) errors left when running BPF selftests on a Loongarch platform since ASSERT_GE() are used there to check the return values, not ASSERT_OK(): ''' test_bpf_cookie:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec #17/1 bpf_cookie/kprobe:OK #17/2 bpf_cookie/multi_kprobe_link_api:OK #17/3 bpf_cookie/multi_kprobe_attach_api:OK #17/4 bpf_cookie/uprobe:OK #17/5 bpf_cookie/multi_uprobe_attach_api:OK #17/6 bpf_cookie/tracepoint:OK #17/7 bpf_cookie/perf_event:OK tracing_subtest:FAIL:fentry.link_create unexpected fentry.link_create: \ actual -524 < expected 0 #17/8 bpf_cookie/trampoline:FAIL lsm_subtest:FAIL:lsm.link_create unexpected lsm.link_create: \ actual -524 < expected 0 #17/9 bpf_cookie/lsm:FAIL #17/10 bpf_cookie/tp_btf:OK #17/11 bpf_cookie/raw_tp:OK #17 bpf_cookie:FAIL ... ... test_module_fentry_shadow:PASS:load_vmlinux_btf 0 nsec test_module_fentry_shadow:PASS:get_bpf_testmod_btf_fd 0 nsec test_module_fentry_shadow:PASS:btf_get_from_fd 0 nsec test_module_fentry_shadow:PASS:btf_find_by_name 0 nsec test_module_fentry_shadow:PASS:btf_find_by_name 0 nsec test_module_fentry_shadow:PASS:bpf_prog_load 0 nsec test_module_fentry_shadow:FAIL:bpf_link_create unexpected \ bpf_link_create: actual -524 < expected 0 #168 module_fentry_shadow:FAIL ''' Just like in ASSERT_OK(), this patch uses test_progs_get_error() helper to skip ENOTSUPP (524) and ENOTSUP (95) in ASSERT_GT() too. With this change, the new output of these selftests look like: ''' #17/1 bpf_cookie/kprobe:OK #17/2 bpf_cookie/multi_kprobe_link_api:OK #17/3 bpf_cookie/multi_kprobe_attach_api:OK #17/4 bpf_cookie/uprobe:OK #17/5 bpf_cookie/multi_uprobe_attach_api:OK #17/6 bpf_cookie/tracepoint:OK #17/7 bpf_cookie/perf_event:OK #17/8 bpf_cookie/trampoline:SKIP #17/9 bpf_cookie/lsm:SKIP #17/10 bpf_cookie/tp_btf:SKIP #17/11 bpf_cookie/raw_tp:SKIP #17 bpf_cookie:OK (SKIP: 4/11) ... ... #168 module_fentry_shadow:SKIP ''' Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 8, 2024
There are still some "ENOTSUPP" (-524) errors left when running BPF selftests on a Loongarch platform since ASSERT_GE() are used there to check the return values, not ASSERT_OK(): ''' test_bpf_cookie:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec #17/1 bpf_cookie/kprobe:OK #17/2 bpf_cookie/multi_kprobe_link_api:OK #17/3 bpf_cookie/multi_kprobe_attach_api:OK #17/4 bpf_cookie/uprobe:OK #17/5 bpf_cookie/multi_uprobe_attach_api:OK #17/6 bpf_cookie/tracepoint:OK #17/7 bpf_cookie/perf_event:OK tracing_subtest:FAIL:fentry.link_create unexpected fentry.link_create: \ actual -524 < expected 0 #17/8 bpf_cookie/trampoline:FAIL lsm_subtest:FAIL:lsm.link_create unexpected lsm.link_create: \ actual -524 < expected 0 #17/9 bpf_cookie/lsm:FAIL #17/10 bpf_cookie/tp_btf:OK #17/11 bpf_cookie/raw_tp:OK #17 bpf_cookie:FAIL ... ... test_module_fentry_shadow:PASS:load_vmlinux_btf 0 nsec test_module_fentry_shadow:PASS:get_bpf_testmod_btf_fd 0 nsec test_module_fentry_shadow:PASS:btf_get_from_fd 0 nsec test_module_fentry_shadow:PASS:btf_find_by_name 0 nsec test_module_fentry_shadow:PASS:btf_find_by_name 0 nsec test_module_fentry_shadow:PASS:bpf_prog_load 0 nsec test_module_fentry_shadow:FAIL:bpf_link_create unexpected \ bpf_link_create: actual -524 < expected 0 #168 module_fentry_shadow:FAIL ''' Just like in ASSERT_OK(), this patch uses test_progs_get_error() helper to skip ENOTSUPP (524) and ENOTSUP (95) in ASSERT_GT() too. With this change, the new output of these selftests look like: ''' #17/1 bpf_cookie/kprobe:OK #17/2 bpf_cookie/multi_kprobe_link_api:OK #17/3 bpf_cookie/multi_kprobe_attach_api:OK #17/4 bpf_cookie/uprobe:OK #17/5 bpf_cookie/multi_uprobe_attach_api:OK #17/6 bpf_cookie/tracepoint:OK #17/7 bpf_cookie/perf_event:OK #17/8 bpf_cookie/trampoline:SKIP #17/9 bpf_cookie/lsm:SKIP #17/10 bpf_cookie/tp_btf:SKIP #17/11 bpf_cookie/raw_tp:SKIP #17 bpf_cookie:OK (SKIP: 4/11) ... ... #168 module_fentry_shadow:SKIP ''' Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Pull request for series with
subject: Enable non-atomic allocations in local storage
version: 3
url: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=624493