* [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.2 024/249] selftests/bpf: adjust verifier scale test
[not found] <20190715134655.4076-1-sashal@kernel.org>
@ 2019-07-15 13:43 ` Sasha Levin
2019-07-15 13:44 ` [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.2 085/249] selftests/bpf : clean up feature/ when make clean Sasha Levin
2019-07-15 13:46 ` [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.2 226/249] selftests: bpf: fix inlines in test_lwt_seg6local Sasha Levin
2 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Sasha Levin @ 2019-07-15 13:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel, stable
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov, Andrii Nakryiko, Daniel Borkmann, Sasha Levin,
linux-kselftest, netdev, bpf
From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
[ Upstream commit 7c0c6095d48dcd0e67c917aa73cdbb2715aafc36 ]
Adjust scale tests to check for new jmp sequence limit.
BPF_JGT had to be changed to BPF_JEQ because the verifier was
too smart. It tracked the known safe range of R0 values
and pruned the search earlier before hitting exact 8192 limit.
bpf_semi_rand_get() was too (un)?lucky.
k = 0; was missing in bpf_fill_scale2.
It was testing a bit shorter sequence of jumps than intended.
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 31 +++++++++++----------
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
index 288cb740e005..6438d4dc8ae1 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
@@ -207,33 +207,35 @@ static void bpf_fill_rand_ld_dw(struct bpf_test *self)
self->retval = (uint32_t)res;
}
-/* test the sequence of 1k jumps */
+#define MAX_JMP_SEQ 8192
+
+/* test the sequence of 8k jumps */
static void bpf_fill_scale1(struct bpf_test *self)
{
struct bpf_insn *insn = self->fill_insns;
int i = 0, k = 0;
insn[i++] = BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_1);
- /* test to check that the sequence of 1024 jumps is acceptable */
- while (k++ < 1024) {
+ /* test to check that the long sequence of jumps is acceptable */
+ while (k++ < MAX_JMP_SEQ) {
insn[i++] = BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0,
BPF_FUNC_get_prandom_u32);
- insn[i++] = BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JGT, BPF_REG_0, bpf_semi_rand_get(), 2);
+ insn[i++] = BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, bpf_semi_rand_get(), 2);
insn[i++] = BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10);
insn[i++] = BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_6,
-8 * (k % 64 + 1));
}
- /* every jump adds 1024 steps to insn_processed, so to stay exactly
- * within 1m limit add MAX_TEST_INSNS - 1025 MOVs and 1 EXIT
+ /* every jump adds 1 step to insn_processed, so to stay exactly
+ * within 1m limit add MAX_TEST_INSNS - MAX_JMP_SEQ - 1 MOVs and 1 EXIT
*/
- while (i < MAX_TEST_INSNS - 1025)
+ while (i < MAX_TEST_INSNS - MAX_JMP_SEQ - 1)
insn[i++] = BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_MOV, BPF_REG_0, 42);
insn[i] = BPF_EXIT_INSN();
self->prog_len = i + 1;
self->retval = 42;
}
-/* test the sequence of 1k jumps in inner most function (function depth 8)*/
+/* test the sequence of 8k jumps in inner most function (function depth 8)*/
static void bpf_fill_scale2(struct bpf_test *self)
{
struct bpf_insn *insn = self->fill_insns;
@@ -245,19 +247,20 @@ static void bpf_fill_scale2(struct bpf_test *self)
insn[i++] = BPF_EXIT_INSN();
}
insn[i++] = BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_1);
- /* test to check that the sequence of 1024 jumps is acceptable */
- while (k++ < 1024) {
+ /* test to check that the long sequence of jumps is acceptable */
+ k = 0;
+ while (k++ < MAX_JMP_SEQ) {
insn[i++] = BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0,
BPF_FUNC_get_prandom_u32);
- insn[i++] = BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JGT, BPF_REG_0, bpf_semi_rand_get(), 2);
+ insn[i++] = BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, bpf_semi_rand_get(), 2);
insn[i++] = BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10);
insn[i++] = BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_6,
-8 * (k % (64 - 4 * FUNC_NEST) + 1));
}
- /* every jump adds 1024 steps to insn_processed, so to stay exactly
- * within 1m limit add MAX_TEST_INSNS - 1025 MOVs and 1 EXIT
+ /* every jump adds 1 step to insn_processed, so to stay exactly
+ * within 1m limit add MAX_TEST_INSNS - MAX_JMP_SEQ - 1 MOVs and 1 EXIT
*/
- while (i < MAX_TEST_INSNS - 1025)
+ while (i < MAX_TEST_INSNS - MAX_JMP_SEQ - 1)
insn[i++] = BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_MOV, BPF_REG_0, 42);
insn[i] = BPF_EXIT_INSN();
self->prog_len = i + 1;
--
2.20.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.2 085/249] selftests/bpf : clean up feature/ when make clean
[not found] <20190715134655.4076-1-sashal@kernel.org>
2019-07-15 13:43 ` [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.2 024/249] selftests/bpf: adjust verifier scale test Sasha Levin
@ 2019-07-15 13:44 ` Sasha Levin
2019-07-15 13:46 ` [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.2 226/249] selftests: bpf: fix inlines in test_lwt_seg6local Sasha Levin
2 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Sasha Levin @ 2019-07-15 13:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel, stable
Cc: Hechao Li, Andrii Nakryiko, Daniel Borkmann, Sasha Levin,
linux-kselftest, netdev, bpf
From: Hechao Li <hechaol@fb.com>
[ Upstream commit 89cceaa939171fafa153d4bf637b39e396bbd785 ]
An error "implicit declaration of function 'reallocarray'" can be thrown
with the following steps:
$ cd tools/testing/selftests/bpf
$ make clean && make CC=<Path to GCC 4.8.5>
$ make clean && make CC=<Path to GCC 7.x>
The cause is that the feature folder generated by GCC 4.8.5 is not
removed, leaving feature-reallocarray being 1, which causes reallocarray
not defined when re-compliing with GCC 7.x. This diff adds feature
folder to EXTRA_CLEAN to avoid this problem.
v2: Rephrase the commit message.
Signed-off-by: Hechao Li <hechaol@fb.com>
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile
index e36356e2377e..1c9511262947 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile
@@ -275,4 +275,5 @@ $(OUTPUT)/verifier/tests.h: $(VERIFIER_TESTS_DIR) $(VERIFIER_TEST_FILES)
) > $(VERIFIER_TESTS_H))
EXTRA_CLEAN := $(TEST_CUSTOM_PROGS) $(ALU32_BUILD_DIR) \
- $(VERIFIER_TESTS_H) $(PROG_TESTS_H) $(MAP_TESTS_H)
+ $(VERIFIER_TESTS_H) $(PROG_TESTS_H) $(MAP_TESTS_H) \
+ feature
--
2.20.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.2 226/249] selftests: bpf: fix inlines in test_lwt_seg6local
[not found] <20190715134655.4076-1-sashal@kernel.org>
2019-07-15 13:43 ` [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.2 024/249] selftests/bpf: adjust verifier scale test Sasha Levin
2019-07-15 13:44 ` [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.2 085/249] selftests/bpf : clean up feature/ when make clean Sasha Levin
@ 2019-07-15 13:46 ` Sasha Levin
2019-07-17 9:43 ` Jiri Benc
2 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Sasha Levin @ 2019-07-15 13:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel, stable
Cc: Jiri Benc, Yonghong Song, Daniel Borkmann, Sasha Levin,
linux-kselftest, netdev, bpf, clang-built-linux
From: Jiri Benc <jbenc@redhat.com>
[ Upstream commit 11aca65ec4db09527d3e9b6b41a0615b7da4386b ]
Selftests are reporting this failure in test_lwt_seg6local.sh:
+ ip netns exec ns2 ip -6 route add fb00::6 encap bpf in obj test_lwt_seg6local.o sec encap_srh dev veth2
Error fetching program/map!
Failed to parse eBPF program: Operation not permitted
The problem is __attribute__((always_inline)) alone is not enough to prevent
clang from inserting those functions in .text. In that case, .text is not
marked as relocateable.
See the output of objdump -h test_lwt_seg6local.o:
Idx Name Size VMA LMA File off Algn
0 .text 00003530 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 00000040 2**3
CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, READONLY, CODE
This causes the iproute bpf loader to fail in bpf_fetch_prog_sec:
bpf_has_call_data returns true but bpf_fetch_prog_relo fails as there's no
relocateable .text section in the file.
To fix this, convert to 'static __always_inline'.
v2: Use 'static __always_inline' instead of 'static inline
__attribute__((always_inline))'
Fixes: c99a84eac026 ("selftests/bpf: test for seg6local End.BPF action")
Signed-off-by: Jiri Benc <jbenc@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
---
.../testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_lwt_seg6local.c | 12 ++++++------
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_lwt_seg6local.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_lwt_seg6local.c
index 0575751bc1bc..e2f6ed0a583d 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_lwt_seg6local.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_lwt_seg6local.c
@@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ struct sr6_tlv_t {
unsigned char value[0];
} BPF_PACKET_HEADER;
-__attribute__((always_inline)) struct ip6_srh_t *get_srh(struct __sk_buff *skb)
+static __always_inline struct ip6_srh_t *get_srh(struct __sk_buff *skb)
{
void *cursor, *data_end;
struct ip6_srh_t *srh;
@@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ __attribute__((always_inline)) struct ip6_srh_t *get_srh(struct __sk_buff *skb)
return srh;
}
-__attribute__((always_inline))
+static __always_inline
int update_tlv_pad(struct __sk_buff *skb, uint32_t new_pad,
uint32_t old_pad, uint32_t pad_off)
{
@@ -125,7 +125,7 @@ int update_tlv_pad(struct __sk_buff *skb, uint32_t new_pad,
return 0;
}
-__attribute__((always_inline))
+static __always_inline
int is_valid_tlv_boundary(struct __sk_buff *skb, struct ip6_srh_t *srh,
uint32_t *tlv_off, uint32_t *pad_size,
uint32_t *pad_off)
@@ -184,7 +184,7 @@ int is_valid_tlv_boundary(struct __sk_buff *skb, struct ip6_srh_t *srh,
return 0;
}
-__attribute__((always_inline))
+static __always_inline
int add_tlv(struct __sk_buff *skb, struct ip6_srh_t *srh, uint32_t tlv_off,
struct sr6_tlv_t *itlv, uint8_t tlv_size)
{
@@ -228,7 +228,7 @@ int add_tlv(struct __sk_buff *skb, struct ip6_srh_t *srh, uint32_t tlv_off,
return update_tlv_pad(skb, new_pad, pad_size, pad_off);
}
-__attribute__((always_inline))
+static __always_inline
int delete_tlv(struct __sk_buff *skb, struct ip6_srh_t *srh,
uint32_t tlv_off)
{
@@ -266,7 +266,7 @@ int delete_tlv(struct __sk_buff *skb, struct ip6_srh_t *srh,
return update_tlv_pad(skb, new_pad, pad_size, pad_off);
}
-__attribute__((always_inline))
+static __always_inline
int has_egr_tlv(struct __sk_buff *skb, struct ip6_srh_t *srh)
{
int tlv_offset = sizeof(struct ip6_t) + sizeof(struct ip6_srh_t) +
--
2.20.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.2 226/249] selftests: bpf: fix inlines in test_lwt_seg6local
2019-07-15 13:46 ` [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.2 226/249] selftests: bpf: fix inlines in test_lwt_seg6local Sasha Levin
@ 2019-07-17 9:43 ` Jiri Benc
2019-07-17 23:47 ` Sasha Levin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Jiri Benc @ 2019-07-17 9:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sasha Levin
Cc: linux-kernel, stable, Yonghong Song, Daniel Borkmann,
linux-kselftest, netdev, bpf, clang-built-linux
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 09:46:31 -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> From: Jiri Benc <jbenc@redhat.com>
>
> [ Upstream commit 11aca65ec4db09527d3e9b6b41a0615b7da4386b ]
>
> Selftests are reporting this failure in test_lwt_seg6local.sh:
I don't think this is critical in any way and I don't think this is a
stable material. How was this selected?
Jiri
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.2 226/249] selftests: bpf: fix inlines in test_lwt_seg6local
2019-07-17 9:43 ` Jiri Benc
@ 2019-07-17 23:47 ` Sasha Levin
2019-07-18 7:36 ` Jiri Benc
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Sasha Levin @ 2019-07-17 23:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jiri Benc
Cc: linux-kernel, stable, Yonghong Song, Daniel Borkmann,
linux-kselftest, netdev, bpf, clang-built-linux
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 11:43:34AM +0200, Jiri Benc wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 09:46:31 -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> From: Jiri Benc <jbenc@redhat.com>
>>
>> [ Upstream commit 11aca65ec4db09527d3e9b6b41a0615b7da4386b ]
>>
>> Selftests are reporting this failure in test_lwt_seg6local.sh:
>
>I don't think this is critical in any way and I don't think this is a
>stable material. How was this selected?
It fixes a bug, right?
--
Thanks,
Sasha
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.2 226/249] selftests: bpf: fix inlines in test_lwt_seg6local
2019-07-17 23:47 ` Sasha Levin
@ 2019-07-18 7:36 ` Jiri Benc
2019-07-18 18:55 ` David Miller
2019-07-18 19:32 ` Sasha Levin
0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Jiri Benc @ 2019-07-18 7:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sasha Levin
Cc: linux-kernel, stable, Yonghong Song, Daniel Borkmann,
linux-kselftest, netdev, bpf, clang-built-linux
On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 19:47:57 -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> It fixes a bug, right?
A bug in selftests. And quite likely, it probably happens only with
some compiler versions.
I don't think patches only touching tools/testing/selftests/ qualify
for stable in general. They don't affect the end users.
Jiri
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.2 226/249] selftests: bpf: fix inlines in test_lwt_seg6local
2019-07-18 7:36 ` Jiri Benc
@ 2019-07-18 18:55 ` David Miller
2019-07-19 7:54 ` Jiri Benc
2019-07-18 19:32 ` Sasha Levin
1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: David Miller @ 2019-07-18 18:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: jbenc
Cc: sashal, linux-kernel, stable, yhs, daniel, linux-kselftest,
netdev, bpf, clang-built-linux
From: Jiri Benc <jbenc@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 09:36:54 +0200
> On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 19:47:57 -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> It fixes a bug, right?
>
> A bug in selftests. And quite likely, it probably happens only with
> some compiler versions.
>
> I don't think patches only touching tools/testing/selftests/ qualify
> for stable in general. They don't affect the end users.
It has a significant impact on automated testing which lots of
individuals and entities perform, therefore I think it very much is
-stable material.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.2 226/249] selftests: bpf: fix inlines in test_lwt_seg6local
2019-07-18 18:55 ` David Miller
@ 2019-07-19 7:54 ` Jiri Benc
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Jiri Benc @ 2019-07-19 7:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Miller
Cc: sashal, linux-kernel, stable, yhs, daniel, linux-kselftest,
netdev, bpf, clang-built-linux
On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 11:55:34 -0700 (PDT), David Miller wrote:
> It has a significant impact on automated testing which lots of
> individuals and entities perform, therefore I think it very much is
> -stable material.
Okay.
Thanks,
Jiri
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.2 226/249] selftests: bpf: fix inlines in test_lwt_seg6local
2019-07-18 7:36 ` Jiri Benc
2019-07-18 18:55 ` David Miller
@ 2019-07-18 19:32 ` Sasha Levin
1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Sasha Levin @ 2019-07-18 19:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jiri Benc
Cc: linux-kernel, stable, Yonghong Song, Daniel Borkmann,
linux-kselftest, netdev, bpf, clang-built-linux
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 09:36:54AM +0200, Jiri Benc wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 19:47:57 -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> It fixes a bug, right?
>
>A bug in selftests. And quite likely, it probably happens only with
>some compiler versions.
>
>I don't think patches only touching tools/testing/selftests/ qualify
>for stable in general. They don't affect the end users.
I'd argue that a bug in your tests is just as (if not even more) worse
than a bug in the code.
--
Thanks,
Sasha
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread