Re: [RFC bpf-next v1 8/8] selftests/bpf: test no_caller_saved_registers spill/fill removal

[Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>]

On Mon, 2024-07-01 at 17:42 -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:

[...]

> You don't seem to have a case where offset is not a multiple of 8
> (though it would have to be a sub-register spill which would be
> "rejected" anyway, so not sure if there is anything to add here)

My bad, will add such a test-case.

> 
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c

[...]

> > +void test_verifier_nocsr(void)
> > +{
> > +#if defined(__x86_64__)
> > +       RUN(verifier_nocsr);
> > +#endif /* __x86_64__ */
> 
> maybe #else <mark-as-skipped> ?

Right, makes sense.

[...]

> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_nocsr.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,437 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > +
> > +#include <linux/bpf.h>
> > +#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
> > +#include "bpf_misc.h"
> > +
> > +#define __xlated_bpf_get_smp_processor_id              \
> > +       __xlated(": w0 = ")                             \
> 
> how will this work for no_alu32 mode?

The patch is applied by kernel, and it does not care about alu32
compiler flags:

	insn_buf[0] = BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_0, (u32)(unsigned long)&pcpu_hot.cpu_number);
	insn_buf[1] = BPF_MOV64_PERCPU_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0);
	insn_buf[2] = BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0);

[...]