linux-kernel - test_bpf regressions on s390 since 5.4

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200716152306.GH3644@ubuntu-x1>
Date:   Thu, 16 Jul 2020 10:23:06 -0500
From:   seth.forshee@...onical.com
To:     Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: test_bpf regressions on s390 since 5.4

The tests in lib/test_bpf.c were all passing in 5.4 when using the JIT,
but some are failing in 5.7/5.8. Some of the failures are due to the
removal of BPF_SIZE_MAX causing some expected failures to pass, which I
have already send a patch for [1]. The remaining failures appear to be
regressions. I haven't tried 5.5 or 5.6, so I'm not sure exactly when
they first appeared.

These are the tests which currently fail:

 test_bpf: #37 INT: MUL_X jited:1 ret -1 != 1 FAIL (1 times)
 test_bpf: #42 INT: SUB jited:1 ret -55 != 11 FAIL (1 times)
 test_bpf: #44 INT: MUL jited:1 ret 439084800 != 903446258 FAIL (1 times)
 test_bpf: #49 INT: shifts by register jited:1 ret -617 != -1 FAIL (1 times)
 test_bpf: #371 JNE signed compare, test 1 jited:1 ret 2 != 1 FAIL (1 times)
 test_bpf: #372 JNE signed compare, test 2 jited:1 ret 2 != 1 FAIL (1 times)
 test_bpf: #374 JNE signed compare, test 4 jited:1 ret 1 != 2 FAIL (1 times)
 test_bpf: #375 JNE signed compare, test 5 jited:1 ret 2 != 1 FAIL (1 times)

Thanks,
Seth

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200716143931.330122-1-seth.forshee@canonical.com/