From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
To: "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@redhat.com>,
"Alexei Starovoitov" <ast@kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
"Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@kernel.org>,
"Jesper Dangaard Brouer" <hawk@kernel.org>,
"John Fastabend" <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/3] A couple of small refactorings of BPF program call sites
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2022 22:47:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5e97c1e8-e7e4-27c4-aee7-ffa5958c6144@iogearbox.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220905193359.969347-1-toke@redhat.com>
On 9/5/22 9:33 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Stanislav suggested[0] that these small refactorings could be split out from the
> XDP queueing RFC series and merged separately. The first change is a small
> repacking of struct softnet_data, the others change the BPF call sites to
> support full 64-bit values as arguments to bpf_redirect_map() and as the return
> value of a BPF program, relying on the fact that BPF registers are always 64-bit
> wide to maintain backwards compatibility.
Looks like might still be issues on s390 [0] around retval checking, e.g.:
[...]
#122 pe_preserve_elems:FAIL
test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:parse_cpu_mask_file 0 nsec
test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:skel_attach 0 nsec
test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:open /proc/self/comm 0 nsec
test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:task rename 0 nsec
test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:check_count 0 nsec
test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:check_on_cpu 0 nsec
test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:test_run should fail for too small ctx 0 nsec
test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:test_run 0 nsec
test_raw_tp_test_run:FAIL:check_retval unexpected check_retval: actual 0 != expected 26796
test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:test_run_opts 0 nsec
test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:check_on_cpu 0 nsec
test_raw_tp_test_run:FAIL:check_retval unexpected check_retval: actual 0 != expected 26796
test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:test_run_opts 0 nsec
test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:check_on_cpu 0 nsec
test_raw_tp_test_run:FAIL:check_retval unexpected check_retval: actual 0 != expected 26796
test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:test_run_opts should fail with ENXIO 0 nsec
test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:test_run_opts_fail 0 nsec
test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:test_run_opts should fail with EINVAL 0 nsec
test_raw_tp_test_run:PASS:test_run_opts_fail 0 nsec
[...]
Thanks,
Daniel
[0] https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/3059535631/jobs/4939404438
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-09-16 20:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-09-05 19:33 [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/3] A couple of small refactorings of BPF program call sites Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2022-09-05 19:33 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/3] dev: Move received_rps counter next to RPS members in softnet data Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2022-09-06 21:58 ` Song Liu
2022-09-05 19:33 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/3] bpf: Expand map key argument of bpf_redirect_map to u64 Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2022-09-06 22:02 ` Song Liu
2022-09-05 19:33 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/3] bpf: Use 64-bit return value for bpf_prog_run Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2022-09-06 22:07 ` Song Liu
2022-09-16 20:47 ` Daniel Borkmann [this message]
2022-09-16 20:59 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/3] A couple of small refactorings of BPF program call sites 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=5e97c1e8-e7e4-27c4-aee7-ffa5958c6144@iogearbox.net \
--to=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=hawk@kernel.org \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=toke@redhat.com \
/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