netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next] bpf: abstract away entire bpf

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: <20200313015012.nejdagphpe44k27i@ast-mbp>
Date:   Thu, 12 Mar 2020 18:50:12 -0700
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>
Cc:     bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, ast@...com,
        daniel@...earbox.net, andrii.nakryiko@...il.com, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next] bpf: abstract away entire bpf_link clean up
 procedure

On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 05:21:28PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> Instead of requiring users to do three steps for cleaning up bpf_link, its
> anon_inode file, and unused fd, abstract that away into bpf_link_cleanup()
> helper. bpf_link_defunct() is removed, as it shouldn't be needed as an
> individual operation anymore.
> 
> v1->v2:
> - keep bpf_link_cleanup() static for now (Daniel).
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>

Applied.

But noticed that the test is now sporadically failing:
./test_progs -n 24
test_link_pinning:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
test_link_pinning_subtest:PASS:link_attach 0 nsec
test_link_pinning_subtest:PASS:res_check1 0 nsec
test_link_pinning_subtest:PASS:link_pin 0 nsec
test_link_pinning_subtest:PASS:pin_path1 0 nsec
test_link_pinning_subtest:PASS:stat_link 0 nsec
test_link_pinning_subtest:PASS:res_check2 0 nsec
test_link_pinning_subtest:PASS:res_check3 0 nsec
test_link_pinning_subtest:PASS:link_open 0 nsec
test_link_pinning_subtest:PASS:pin_path2 0 nsec
test_link_pinning_subtest:PASS:link_unpin 0 nsec
test_link_pinning_subtest:PASS:res_check4 0 nsec
test_link_pinning_subtest:FAIL:link_attached got to iteration #10000
#24/1 pin_raw_tp:FAIL
test_link_pinning_subtest:PASS:link_attach 0 nsec
test_link_pinning_subtest:PASS:res_check1 0 nsec
test_link_pinning_subtest:PASS:link_pin 0 nsec
test_link_pinning_subtest:PASS:pin_path1 0 nsec
test_link_pinning_subtest:PASS:stat_link 0 nsec
test_link_pinning_subtest:PASS:res_check2 0 nsec
test_link_pinning_subtest:PASS:res_check3 0 nsec
test_link_pinning_subtest:PASS:link_open 0 nsec
test_link_pinning_subtest:PASS:pin_path2 0 nsec
test_link_pinning_subtest:PASS:link_unpin 0 nsec
test_link_pinning_subtest:PASS:res_check4 0 nsec
test_link_pinning_subtest:FAIL:link_attached got to iteration #10000
#24/2 pin_tp_btf:FAIL
#24 link_pinning:FAIL
Summary: 0/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 3 FAILED

it's failing more often than passing, actually.

The #64 tcp_rtt also started to fail sporadically.
But I wonder whether it's leftover from 24. shrug.