linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Revert "test_bpf: flag tests that cannot be jited on s390"

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4e0c4f3f6278617dc54fc755d899dbbab396f24d.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Jul 2020 19:53:45 +0200
From:   Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@...onical.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "test_bpf: flag tests that cannot be jited on
 s390"

On Thu, 2020-07-16 at 09:39 -0500, Seth Forshee wrote:
> This reverts commit 3203c9010060806ff88c9989aeab4dc8d9a474dc.
> 
> The s390 bpf JIT previously had a restriction on the maximum
> program size, which required some tests in test_bpf to be flagged
> as expected failures. The program size limitation has been removed,
> and the tests now pass, so these tests should no longer be flagged.
> 
> Fixes: d1242b10ff03 ("s390/bpf: Remove JITed image size limitations")
> Signed-off-by: Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@...onical.com>
> ---
>  lib/test_bpf.c | 20 --------------------
>  1 file changed, 20 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/test_bpf.c b/lib/test_bpf.c
> index a5fddf9ebcb7..ca7d635bccd9 100644
> --- a/lib/test_bpf.c
> +++ b/lib/test_bpf.c
> @@ -5275,31 +5275,21 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
>  	{	/* Mainly checking JIT here. */
>  		"BPF_MAXINSNS: Ctx heavy transformations",
>  		{ },
> -#if defined(CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON) && defined(CONFIG_S390)
> -		CLASSIC | FLAG_EXPECTED_FAIL,
> -#else
>  		CLASSIC,
> -#endif
>  		{ },
>  		{
>  			{  1, SKB_VLAN_PRESENT },
>  			{ 10, SKB_VLAN_PRESENT }
>  		},
>  		.fill_helper = bpf_fill_maxinsns6,
> -		.expected_errcode = -ENOTSUPP,
>  	},
>  	{	/* Mainly checking JIT here. */
>  		"BPF_MAXINSNS: Call heavy transformations",
>  		{ },
> -#if defined(CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON) && defined(CONFIG_S390)
> -		CLASSIC | FLAG_NO_DATA | FLAG_EXPECTED_FAIL,
> -#else
>  		CLASSIC | FLAG_NO_DATA,
> -#endif
>  		{ },
>  		{ { 1, 0 }, { 10, 0 } },
>  		.fill_helper = bpf_fill_maxinsns7,
> -		.expected_errcode = -ENOTSUPP,
>  	},
>  	{	/* Mainly checking JIT here. */
>  		"BPF_MAXINSNS: Jump heavy test",
> @@ -5350,28 +5340,18 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
>  	{
>  		"BPF_MAXINSNS: exec all MSH",
>  		{ },
> -#if defined(CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON) && defined(CONFIG_S390)
> -		CLASSIC | FLAG_EXPECTED_FAIL,
> -#else
>  		CLASSIC,
> -#endif
>  		{ 0xfa, 0xfb, 0xfc, 0xfd, },
>  		{ { 4, 0xababab83 } },
>  		.fill_helper = bpf_fill_maxinsns13,
> -		.expected_errcode = -ENOTSUPP,
>  	},
>  	{
>  		"BPF_MAXINSNS: ld_abs+get_processor_id",
>  		{ },
> -#if defined(CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON) && defined(CONFIG_S390)
> -		CLASSIC | FLAG_EXPECTED_FAIL,
> -#else
>  		CLASSIC,
> -#endif
>  		{ },
>  		{ { 1, 0xbee } },
>  		.fill_helper = bpf_fill_ld_abs_get_processor_id,
> -		.expected_errcode = -ENOTSUPP,
>  	},
>  	/*
>  	 * LD_IND / LD_ABS on fragmented SKBs

Thank you for the fix!
I tested it and it indeed fixes these 4 failures.

I will have a look at the remaining 8 tomorrow.

Reviewed-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@...ux.ibm.com>