From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wr1-f52.google.com (mail-wr1-f52.google.com [209.85.221.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC16D2836BE for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2026 16:12:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.221.52 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773245528; cv=none; b=ckfX0ScAHoDP2NXaVQf3eLV1OLIjQVmIrYcHl/Mk+1uGSdEYmt9wzWa/oAQWzG+lYyK7JsJVI1vpOGzO23u/eQKS2WZVk9GOqi6vjlzd9ngGQHOB5J/opqk2PkEqwoMYhAeI6cD+yRlTHrzgCj+l5qwbT+wnv7x2vW8xRnwYuY8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773245528; c=relaxed/simple; bh=sIyQNwqOjKVpIIiV25yy7lDLknlNRxzQ9aI/FW1l/Sk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=MUcx5fwG8NtwteaiibXwApEdb5lYWNS10K8nhTphVwHm74GLQd474mV0vHR+FKqzUsFnVG/gYXtlIdWwp/6UUY+EMqqtJhmpQpJfqaNTRQ6ytk4iWUSTe7Ufr+j65kkXD6mEcbEAlVXmiytFgTAH1olNcbgpqaR0wlMNp9OemWc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=ejEsmN/L; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.221.52 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="ejEsmN/L" Received: by mail-wr1-f52.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-439af7d77f0so59135f8f.0 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2026 09:12:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1773245525; x=1773850325; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=K53abmcm+HGCYf9w3e1yImH3op/t1XPxWRmPDq4zpG8=; b=ejEsmN/LsIoqLRrXoxvx4YHtjU2jpGw7LknrC5SpT4J+Llikoo8ML6pvijWThjsoB9 tYkeE05nNAGlugJG0P2fw0bZ89cgj1qGw/wEiIEOSXDerc/jQ2wK5NJ4bPM/jY1gwkQt 91Mz6fDxEeMI1M+U9AmpS3bU2DXs6nDg7r8yhg9pl5BeNIs+ZmAZfHLG7syNF4b0DUT9 P55REasWqa/qzm/7c1XOPmmdIq4koknTH5MtMuLzN/mllX8iXTGogJOP+kR8sIl0j7km O9kXUcIWEpdROQHM/ZHcs1GlFXhYfqrngIGHQ+TNiPN73MXGeOY1DhHFPPpOj9nce/7B nvAw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1773245525; x=1773850325; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=K53abmcm+HGCYf9w3e1yImH3op/t1XPxWRmPDq4zpG8=; b=qtaqgeiMtt3NB+xQtxCza25eJCQgLMHRPAEhoswFceuiu6ysDuMoXys3udW/JBaepR 8XRcAilb0F/yqLN/8S6CEqWllvyCYYMBXh+xzoUK6qpNpVhBq+vDVujj1+4M4Zgi46G+ B2RbFgz55eeSL+Q4kuASAtDfbQ54y+I/RwsQRMuCvWD63rmzeXcNNbCztZ6kymu9CD9J BN9tDoRN15j8s3GOTazeLVR4d8CztWoxmb4gkwx6vDhyML4uI7SGkvCkUzzZFU74qEIN xx+VwanfgM9ywV2arvxIULe/6rK7nM375VQJ0q/Hod9bMklZ5nv6dJ0u/L2omReJ2dly NZKw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVlGx+FYsek6XY81xVLLZz5YoMJmuQ+ZgpuHAwEhgUILa10FIB6nB3nH7eZqy3B/yeNg/U=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YztxMbwI496rxYUx8zRpQ1Y8jLKH5KE6jXmYJJeTuKwWeIzL55u yHDjd/CmvuWgreUBNXsxs4d17xYocGieOWW+XrQp8AVOX5NKz/4oXpRJ X-Gm-Gg: ATEYQzxRM3eGYNKzBhqT+CrEUDgyyfI+8QjB8ZUALdMh1ndXwwtUT+aLBBXsNkxzrPS bwMrinZlisrnKmaNye6xVpBk+l+t+Ppxu0gZjLTiOlS3973SBEGtIGv9VVRObR0sj0XAd6tsXwP 3jvh6YJC8OeMw2ntaK+IlCdAF+kagNRzzxRcshJ3fW3p1vrGuV23ub8aNQlgYbBCTV08tfQ15dC 8smCMsqsNGTkICqphzjXaCcqAB1xR1Ewpm0HHtR8x2410xDgwbUmH99EQpl+4AlkUK4jCTlTECd MUZxlF+VXXycW4tJb3f+42yWhEBH9qKpXDOYLlfAh+fnusEcN1upZbF8wFr5vnrg3wo0ceDHb0Y tpUBwJq3HTJz6PMA/RMvFMdLPoXCACwCiqRDqwcOUyvOEtc+l9HqeCCd17aruD5DTnXJhJ9tcor LhB6l0ou7oCmNBngnGJoBJ0DV7cn7GvcH7lziFRqGcvVSqIz/G12wqrt35MahKWC7QjTJCBECYS UEi8/YZ1NeS52DFN7gIOebsDgP44XMD60f1+cmubPmVElgqR8iCX9fVdwase2JyZzxOnerCn5sE mf9x73OXTkk= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:430b:b0:439:d242:e8f4 with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-439f84342bfmr5875208f8f.47.1773245524858; Wed, 11 Mar 2026 09:12:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.gmail.com (2a01cb0889497e0050f5e20850bbf776.ipv6.abo.wanadoo.fr. [2a01:cb08:8949:7e00:50f5:e208:50bb:f776]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ffacd0b85a97d-439fe19aec5sm254462f8f.4.2026.03.11.09.12.01 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 11 Mar 2026 09:12:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2026 17:11:59 +0100 From: Paul Chaignon To: Tiezhu Yang Cc: Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , Andrii Nakryiko , Hengqi Chen , loongarch@lists.linux.dev, bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1 1/2] selftests/bpf: Check alignment flag if expected result is REJECT Message-ID: References: <20260310064507.4228-1-yangtiezhu@loongson.cn> <20260310064507.4228-2-yangtiezhu@loongson.cn> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260310064507.4228-2-yangtiezhu@loongson.cn> On Tue, Mar 10, 2026 at 02:45:06PM +0800, Tiezhu Yang wrote: > CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS is set unconditionally for the > most archs such as x86_64, aarch64, ppc64el and s390x, but this config > may be not set by users for riscv64 and loongarch64. > > If CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS is not set, the BPF verifier > detects if a program has unaligned access and then rejects them. So it > should also check the flag F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS if the > expected result is REJECT and set alignment_prevented_execution as 1, > then the message "(NOTE: not executed due to unknown alignment)" can > be printed for some testcases of test_verifier to reflect the reality. I don't think we should print this message for those rejected tests. It doesn't reflect the reality: these tests were not executed because they were rejected, not because of unknown alignment. And we know they were rejected not because of an unknown alignment since we've set BPF_F_ANY_ALIGNMENT. > > Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang > --- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c > index a8ae03c57bba..a1ae2f044e96 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c > @@ -1640,6 +1640,11 @@ static void do_test_single(struct bpf_test *test, bool unpriv, > printf("FAIL\nUnexpected success to load!\n"); > goto fail_log; > } > +#ifndef CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS > + if (fd_prog < 0 && > + (test->flags & F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS)) > + alignment_prevented_execution = 1; > +#endif > if (!expected_err || !cmp_str_seq(bpf_vlog, expected_err)) { > printf("FAIL\nUnexpected error message!\n\tEXP: %s\n\tRES: %s\n", > expected_err, bpf_vlog); > -- > 2.42.0 > >