From: Luis Gerhorst <luis.gerhorst@fau.de>
To: Hengqi Chen <hengqi.chen@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>,
Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>,
Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Some unpriv verifier tests failed due to bpf_jit_bypass_spec_v1
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2025 12:24:30 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87plb17ijl.fsf@fau.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <878qhr69jb.fsf@fau.de> (Luis Gerhorst's message of "Fri, 03 Oct 2025 21:59:52 +0200")
Luis Gerhorst <luis.gerhorst@fau.de> writes:
> Some test still fail because the '#ifdef SPEC_V1' is still missing for
> them. I will prepare a patch to resolve this.
I now tried around a little and in conclusion I think it would be best
for you to instead disable unpriv tests by adding a 'return -1' for
LoongArch/PowerPC (the only archs setting bpf_jit_bypass_spec_v1) in
get_mitigations_off().
Using SPEC_V1 to also test that certain errors do not occur on archs
like LoongArch gets complicated pretty quickly. This is because we then
have to also set SPEC_V1 on archs that do not have
bpf_jit_bypass_spec_v1() set (e.g., s390x) to test load failure/success
correctly. Also, we still have to disable unpriv tests for PowerPC
(because jit_bypass_spec_v1 is dynamic there), and we have to change
SPEC_V1/xlated tests to take thing like zext into consideration to make
them work on s390x. I tried everything except for the zext stuff, see
the series sent in reply to this.
Currently, '#ifdef SPEC_V1' is only used to add additional __xlated
tests for x86/ARM, not to determine the load failure/success expected.
Therefore, this complexity is currently avoided.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-10-05 10:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-09-23 9:52 Some unpriv verifier tests failed due to bpf_jit_bypass_spec_v1 Hengqi Chen
2025-10-03 19:59 ` Luis Gerhorst
2025-10-05 10:24 ` Luis Gerhorst [this message]
2025-10-05 10:35 ` [RFC 1/3] bpf: Fall back to nospec for sanitization-failures Luis Gerhorst
2025-10-10 12:03 ` kernel test robot
2025-10-05 10:41 ` [RFC 2/3] selftests/bpf: Fix SPEC_V1/V4 for other archs Luis Gerhorst
2025-10-05 10:45 ` [RFC 3/3] selftests/bpf: Add missing SPEC_V1-ifdefs Luis Gerhorst
2026-01-09 0:05 ` Alexei Starovoitov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87plb17ijl.fsf@fau.de \
--to=luis.gerhorst@fau.de \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=hengqi.chen@gmail.com \
--cc=yangtiezhu@loongson.cn \
--cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.