From: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
To: Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@meta.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v9 22/23] selftests/bpf: Add BPF linked list API tests
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2022 05:28:49 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20221117235849.bldrbatcyuhqevtk@apollo> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e3b2d51e-22ae-b6b3-b618-b410dbdf89ce@meta.com>
On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 04:57:50AM IST, Dave Marchevsky wrote:
> On 11/17/22 6:05 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 2:56 PM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
> > <memxor@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Include various tests covering the success and failure cases. Also, run
> >> the success cases at runtime to verify correctness of linked list
> >> manipulation routines, in addition to ensuring successful verification.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
> >> ---
>
> [...]
>
> >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/linked_list.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/linked_list.h
> >> new file mode 100644
> >> index 000000000000..8db80ed64db1
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/linked_list.h
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
> >> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> >> +#ifndef LINKED_LIST_H
> >> +#define LINKED_LIST_H
> >> +
> >> +#include <vmlinux.h>
> >> +#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
> >> +#include "bpf_experimental.h"
> >> +
> >> +struct bar {
> >> + struct bpf_list_node node;
> >> + int data;
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> +struct foo {
> >> + struct bpf_list_node node;
> >> + struct bpf_list_head head __contains(bar, node);
> >> + struct bpf_spin_lock lock;
> >> + int data;
> >> + struct bpf_list_node node2;
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> +struct map_value {
> >> + struct bpf_spin_lock lock;
> >> + int data;
> >> + struct bpf_list_head head __contains(foo, node);
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> +struct array_map {
> >> + __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_ARRAY);
> >> + __type(key, int);
> >> + __type(value, struct map_value);
> >> + __uint(max_entries, 1);
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> +struct array_map array_map SEC(".maps");
> >> +struct array_map inner_map SEC(".maps");
> >> +
> >> +struct {
> >> + __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_ARRAY_OF_MAPS);
> >> + __uint(max_entries, 1);
> >> + __type(key, int);
> >> + __type(value, int);
> >> + __array(values, struct array_map);
> >> +} map_of_maps SEC(".maps") = {
> >> + .values = {
> >> + [0] = &inner_map,
> >> + },
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> +#define private(name) SEC(".data." #name) __hidden __attribute__((aligned(8)))
> >> +
> >> +private(A) struct bpf_spin_lock glock;
> >> +private(A) struct bpf_list_head ghead __contains(foo, node);
> >> +private(B) struct bpf_spin_lock glock2;
> >
> > The latest llvm crashes with a bug here:
> >
> > fatal error: error in backend: unable to write nop sequence of 4 bytes
> >
> > Please see BPF CI.
> >
> > So far I wasn't able to find a manual workaround :(
> > Please give it a shot too.
> >
> > Or disable the test for this case for now?
>
> I noticed this in an earlier version of the series.
> Will be submitting a fix to LLVM upstream today.
>
> Until that's settled, reverting commit 463da422f019 ("MC: make section classification a bit more thorough")
> in LLVM will fix the issue.
I can confirm the revert fixes the crash.
Let me know what to do (whether to disable the test temporarily and respin, or
whether the revert can be applied to CI)? And whether I should respin the set
adding it to DENYLIST.aarch64.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-17 23:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-11-17 22:54 [PATCH bpf-next v9 00/23] Allocated objects, BPF linked lists Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-17 22:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next v9 01/23] bpf: Fix early return in map_check_btf Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-17 22:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next v9 02/23] bpf: Do btf_record_free outside map_free callback Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-17 22:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next v9 03/23] bpf: Free inner_map_meta when btf_record_dup fails Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-17 22:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next v9 04/23] bpf: Populate field_offs for inner_map_meta Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-17 22:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next v9 05/23] bpf: Introduce allocated objects support Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-17 22:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next v9 06/23] bpf: Recognize lock and list fields in allocated objects Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-17 22:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next v9 07/23] bpf: Verify ownership relationships for user BTF types Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-17 22:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next v9 08/23] bpf: Allow locking bpf_spin_lock in allocated objects Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-17 22:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next v9 09/23] bpf: Allow locking bpf_spin_lock global variables Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-17 22:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next v9 10/23] bpf: Allow locking bpf_spin_lock in inner map values Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-17 22:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next v9 11/23] bpf: Rewrite kfunc argument handling Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-17 22:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next v9 12/23] bpf: Support constant scalar arguments for kfuncs Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-17 22:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next v9 13/23] bpf: Introduce bpf_obj_new Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-17 22:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next v9 14/23] bpf: Introduce bpf_obj_drop Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-17 22:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next v9 15/23] bpf: Permit NULL checking pointer with non-zero fixed offset Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-17 22:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next v9 16/23] bpf: Introduce single ownership BPF linked list API Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18 0:12 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-11-17 22:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next v9 17/23] bpf: Add 'release on unlock' logic for bpf_list_push_{front,back} Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-17 22:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next v9 18/23] bpf: Add comments for map BTF matching requirement for bpf_list_head Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-17 22:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next v9 19/23] selftests/bpf: Add __contains macro to bpf_experimental.h Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-17 22:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next v9 20/23] selftests/bpf: Update spinlock selftest Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-17 22:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next v9 21/23] selftests/bpf: Add failure test cases for spin lock pairing Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-17 22:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next v9 22/23] selftests/bpf: Add BPF linked list API tests Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-17 23:05 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-11-17 23:27 ` Dave Marchevsky
2022-11-17 23:58 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi [this message]
2022-11-18 0:05 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-11-17 23:29 ` Yonghong Song
2022-11-17 22:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next v9 23/23] selftests/bpf: Add BTF sanity tests Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
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=20221117235849.bldrbatcyuhqevtk@apollo \
--to=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davemarchevsky@meta.com \
--cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox