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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <644AE5C7-8D19-4368-BE5E-459BB7F5A620@netronome.com> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 11:47:13 +0000 From: Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@...ronome.com> To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, oss-drivers@...ronome.com Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/3] selftests: bpf: extend sub-register mode compilation to all bpf object files > On 11 Feb 2019, at 04:04, Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 05:41:20PM +0000, Jiong Wang wrote: >> At the moment, we only do extra sub-register mode compilation on bpf object >> files used by "test_progs". These object files are really loaded and >> executed. >> >> This patch further extends sub-register mode compilation to all bpf object >> files, even those without corresponding runtime tests. Because this could >> help testing LLVM sub-register code-gen, kernel bpf selftest has much more >> C testcases with reasonable size and complexity compared with LLVM >> testsuite which only contains unit tests. >> >> There were some file duplication inside BPF_OBJ_FILES_DUAL_COMPILE which >> is removed now. >> >> Reviewed-by: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com> >> Signed-off-by: Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@...ronome.com> >> --- >> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile | 21 ++++++++------------- >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile >> index 383d2ff..70b2570 100644 >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile >> @@ -35,20 +35,15 @@ BPF_OBJ_FILES = \ >> sendmsg4_prog.o sendmsg6_prog.o test_lirc_mode2_kern.o \ >> get_cgroup_id_kern.o socket_cookie_prog.o test_select_reuseport_kern.o \ >> test_skb_cgroup_id_kern.o bpf_flow.o netcnt_prog.o test_xdp_vlan.o \ >> - xdp_dummy.o test_map_in_map.o test_spin_lock.o test_map_lock.o >> - >> -# Objects are built with default compilation flags and with sub-register >> -# code-gen enabled. >> -BPF_OBJ_FILES_DUAL_COMPILE = \ >> - test_pkt_access.o test_pkt_access.o test_xdp.o test_adjust_tail.o \ >> - test_l4lb.o test_l4lb_noinline.o test_xdp_noinline.o test_tcp_estats.o \ >> + xdp_dummy.o test_map_in_map.o test_spin_lock.o test_map_lock.o \ >> + test_pkt_access.o test_xdp.o test_adjust_tail.o test_l4lb.o \ >> + test_l4lb_noinline.o test_xdp_noinline.o test_tcp_estats.o \ >> test_obj_id.o test_pkt_md_access.o test_tracepoint.o \ >> - test_stacktrace_map.o test_stacktrace_map.o test_stacktrace_build_id.o \ >> - test_stacktrace_build_id.o test_get_stack_rawtp.o \ >> - test_get_stack_rawtp.o test_tracepoint.o test_sk_lookup_kern.o \ >> - test_queue_map.o test_stack_map.o >> + test_stacktrace_map.o test_stacktrace_build_id.o \ >> + test_get_stack_rawtp.o test_sk_lookup_kern.o test_queue_map.o \ >> + test_stack_map.o >> >> -TEST_GEN_FILES = $(BPF_OBJ_FILES) $(BPF_OBJ_FILES_DUAL_COMPILE) >> +TEST_GEN_FILES = $(BPF_OBJ_FILES) >> >> # Also test sub-register code-gen if LLVM + kernel both has eBPF v3 processor >> # support which is the first version to contain both ALU32 and JMP32 >> @@ -58,7 +53,7 @@ SUBREG_CODEGEN := $(shell echo "int cal(int a) { return a > 0; }" | \ >> $(LLC) -mattr=+alu32 -mcpu=probe 2>&1 | \ >> grep 'if w') > > build and test servers can be different. > Would it make sense to use -mcpu=v3 instead of -mcpu=probe ? Have the same thoughts initially, but was worried the situation where doing native bpf selftest, build/test on same machine and llvm is new but kernel is old. I think remove the runtime kernel criteria make sense if for bpf selftest, separation between build and test server are often, for example cross-compilation are used. Will add a new patch to make this change. > > Also while testing test_progs_32 fails like this: > libbpf: failed to open ./bpf_flow.o: No such file or directory > libbpf: failed to open ./test_spin_lock.o: No such file or directory > test_spin_lock:bpf_prog_load errno 2 > > Do you see the same ? Hmm, I haven’t see the same. This is expected to happen before this patch, but should not after. Because bpf_flow and test_spin_lock were added after the initial JMP32 patch set. Noticed there is patch conflict between this patch and KaFai’s latest test_sock_fields change. Perhaps this patch hasn’t been applied successfully when doing the test on your env? Regards, Jiong
Powered by blists - more mailing lists