From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CDF1C11F67 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 16:41:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 590E961DD9 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 16:41:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234010AbhF2QoB (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jun 2021 12:44:01 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]:25102 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232441AbhF2Qn6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jun 2021 12:43:58 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1624984890; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=R6lsvhzrygbJh4AwNqvmWZ2sHvNWKnTHpejWGaVE6/Q=; b=Vek6keY6+sKxtieEM3dL0/7DcPZ7jsjSpYGCDSqDCOJ+NEIoL720u7/vi5me3dY9g+i+Ze TEfcoM99ZQ7WJnBICkG3tZ9xpTZ2TA3jwXTopgdQW8zta79yzzjCUOqPuwVH9rFoqUg4Bx NFPcKosd9Rq95zxyZuciUV4zfHtp9NQ= Received: from mail-wm1-f70.google.com (mail-wm1-f70.google.com [209.85.128.70]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-558-f715RpGQP3qNIbLFL9-G8w-1; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 12:41:27 -0400 X-MC-Unique: f715RpGQP3qNIbLFL9-G8w-1 Received: by mail-wm1-f70.google.com with SMTP id j6-20020a05600c1906b029019e9c982271so1539182wmq.0 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 09:41:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=R6lsvhzrygbJh4AwNqvmWZ2sHvNWKnTHpejWGaVE6/Q=; b=ARCjaUpi3VjsCd10hEqtp7r9itkQGSoxmltCNXqERphYHxuoOoZZPeAJKjJWYn8NJe /amOHvkKNWpHrgp0xx/HMSc++VK/+H48mMB66yBlXCKpmcV4auuGHowS05BcPZO85G3t Ni5SzwI0jJMBdIA0Qwrdhrno3N0OptsWP/TWzAszyLr9BwcMrATN7frgSjneMG5UFY14 5MsHsuEdDf8o/CWz6ga39eyIswrc8wvSWviLnU28W7UBZILAZ0FSEF8kO/vkvBpBgU28 iCaalbR72pgh3l/zbPsou8H+ahIEqKFOt9NWa3nf0ysANNPVqubn27wEq57e7hnL5x11 v8Sw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53245un581goEPjLiFkdJm+0WxDcNKUwhBYdxTRAxlHkkJKSKGt1 Wyv/4iZzo+OEBnhj+PyouMIUu8VTcJVu7c8UXt+pCSJcFYQO+MBUTDJTOWxaenY4pXgCGl4d8lx wjoYw6MQg5cfSl+1Uk9/i2obU X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:33a6:: with SMTP id o38mr18188279wmp.126.1624984884908; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 09:41:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwtkavlaXf3Z3/wVm1xSHl973s+nq+E8K48zkjSONEaCMRvgep32bNqxaRm0rT1LRFZcUt0CA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:33a6:: with SMTP id o38mr18188269wmp.126.1624984884791; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 09:41:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from krava ([109.53.3.246]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h10sm3339837wmb.40.2021.06.29.09.41.23 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 29 Jun 2021 09:41:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 18:41:21 +0200 From: Jiri Olsa To: Brendan Jackman Cc: bpf , Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , Andrii Nakryiko , KP Singh , Florent Revest , John Fastabend , LKML , "Naveen N. Rao" , Sandipan Das Subject: Re: [BUG soft lockup] Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3] bpf: Propagate stack bounds to registers in atomics w/ BPF_FETCH Message-ID: References: <20210202135002.4024825-1-jackmanb@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 06:25:33PM +0200, Brendan Jackman wrote: > On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 at 18:04, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 04:10:12PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 11:21:42AM +0200, Brendan Jackman wrote: > > > > On Sun, 27 Jun 2021 at 17:34, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 01:50:02PM +0000, Brendan Jackman wrote: > [snip] > > > > Hmm, is the test prog from atomic_bounds.c getting JITed there (my > > > > dumb guess at what '0xc0000000119efb30 (unreliable)' means)? That > > > > shouldn't happen - should get 'eBPF filter atomic op code %02x (@%d) > > > > unsupported\n' in dmesg instead. I wonder if I missed something in > > > > commit 91c960b0056 (bpf: Rename BPF_XADD and prepare to encode other > > > > I see that for all the other atomics tests: > > > > [root@ibm-p9z-07-lp1 bpf]# ./test_verifier 21 > > #21/p BPF_ATOMIC_AND without fetch FAIL > > Failed to load prog 'Unknown error 524'! > > verification time 32 usec > > stack depth 8 > > processed 10 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 0 total_states 1 peak_states 1 mark_read 1 > > Summary: 0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 2 FAILED > > Hm that's also not good - failure to JIT shouldn't mean failure to > load. Are there other test_verifier failures or is it just the atomics > ones? I have CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON=y so I think that's fine > > > console: > > > > [ 51.850952] eBPF filter atomic op code db (@2) unsupported > > [ 51.851134] eBPF filter atomic op code db (@2) unsupported > > > > > > [root@ibm-p9z-07-lp1 bpf]# ./test_verifier 22 > > #22/u BPF_ATOMIC_AND with fetch FAIL > > Failed to load prog 'Unknown error 524'! > > verification time 38 usec > > stack depth 8 > > processed 14 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 0 total_states 1 peak_states 1 mark_read 1 > > #22/p BPF_ATOMIC_AND with fetch FAIL > > Failed to load prog 'Unknown error 524'! > > verification time 26 usec > > stack depth 8 > > processed 14 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 0 total_states 1 peak_states 1 mark_read 1 > > > > console: > > [ 223.231420] eBPF filter atomic op code db (@3) unsupported > > [ 223.231596] eBPF filter atomic op code db (@3) unsupported > > > > ... > > > > > > but no such console output for: > > > > [root@ibm-p9z-07-lp1 bpf]# ./test_verifier 24 > > #24/u BPF_ATOMIC bounds propagation, mem->reg OK > > > > > > > > atomics in .imm). Any idea if this test was ever passing on PowerPC? > > > > > > > > > > hum, I guess not.. will check > > > > nope, it locks up the same: > > Do you mean it locks up at commit 91c960b0056 too? > I tried this one: 37086bfdc737 bpf: Propagate stack bounds to registers in atomics w/ BPF_FETCH I will check also 91c960b0056, but I think it's the new test issue jirka