netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/6] tcp: add some RTO MIN and DELACK MAX {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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <CAL+tcoBiLEJCY==xkxTBAvNSZ2P4-16nZpELkgq=sdB-=kM1Yw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 13:25:34 +0100
From: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
To: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>
Cc: bot+bpf-ci@...nel.org, kernel-ci@...a.com, andrii@...nel.org, 
	daniel@...earbox.net, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/6] tcp: add some RTO MIN and DELACK MAX
 {bpf_}set/getsockopt supports

On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 7:50 AM Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 7:44 PM Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev> wrote:
> >
> > On 3/11/25 11:39 AM, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> > > On 3/11/25 4:07 AM, Jason Xing wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 10:26 AM <bot+bpf-ci@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Dear patch submitter,
> > >>>
> > >>> CI has tested the following submission:
> > >>> Status:     FAILURE
> > >>> Name:       [bpf-next,v2,0/6] tcp: add some RTO MIN and DELACK MAX {bpf_}set/
> > >>> getsockopt supports
> > >>> Patchwork:  https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?
> > >>> series=942617&state=*
> > >>> Matrix:     https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/13784214269
> > >>>
> > >>> Failed jobs:
> > >>> test_progs-aarch64-gcc: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/
> > >>> runs/13784214269/job/38548852334
> > >>> test_progs_no_alu32-aarch64-gcc: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/
> > >>> actions/runs/13784214269/job/38548853075
> > >>> test_progs-s390x-gcc: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/
> > >>> runs/13784214269/job/38548829871
> > >>> test_progs_no_alu32-s390x-gcc: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/
> > >>> runs/13784214269/job/38548830246
> > >>
> > >> I see https://netdev.bots.linux.dev/static/nipa/942617/apply/desc that
> > >
> > > It cannot apply, so it applied to bpf-next/net.
> > >
> > > I just confirmed by first checking this:
> > > https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/pulls
> > >
> > > then find your patches and figure out bpf-net_base:
> > > https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/pull/8649
> > >
> > >> says the patch can not be applied. Could it be possible that CI
> > >> applied it on the wrong branch? I targeted the net branch.
> > >>
> > >> I have no clue this series is affecting the following tests
> > >
> > > The test is changing the exact same test setget_sockopt and it failed, so it
> > > should be suspicious enough to look at the details of the bpf CI report.
> > >
> > > The report said it failed in aarch64 and s390 but x86 seems to be fine.
> > > When the test failed, it pretty much failed on all tests. It looks like some of
> > > the new set/getsockopt checks failed in these two archs. A blind guess is the
> > > jiffies part.
> >
> > and forgot to mention that you can run bpf CI before posting. This may be easier
> > to test other archs. Take a look at Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst. The
> > section "How do I run BPF CI on my changes before sending them out for review?"
>
> Thanks for the pointer.
>
> Let me try one patch by one patch. Having checked the series itself, I
> still have no clue. You said jiffies part. What is that? Could you
> please point out a file name or configuration so that I can follow you
> and then do some tests?

Oh, I realized that. Maybe I need to adjust the test and expected
value in the selftests to make it compatible with different HZ values
in those arch configs.

Thanks,
Jason