From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jan Stancek Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 01:50:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [LTP] [PATCH v4 0/4] Basic eBPF tests In-Reply-To: <20190902145524.GB10860@rei.lan> References: <20190826111024.19053-1-chrubis@suse.cz> <1492475067.8173800.1566829761941.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <20190902145524.GB10860@rei.lan> Message-ID: <494040796.9629252.1567489841971.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it ----- Original Message ----- > Hi! > > There's one EPERM I can reproduce reliably with bpf_map test, which appears > > to originate from "bpf_charge_memlock". > > > > There's a deferred component to map freeing, and unchange appears to be > > part of it: > > bpf_map_release > > bpf_map_put > > INIT_WORK(&map->work, bpf_map_free_deferred); > > (deferred) bpf_uncharge_memlock > > > > When I lower max locked memory, it's easy to hit: > > # ulimit -l 128; ./bpf_map01 -i 100 > > ... > > bpf_map01.c:52: CONF: bpf() requires CAP_SYS_ADMIN on this system: EPERM > > > > Can you try bumping max locked memory to some high value and check > > if that helps your case? > > Looks like this was the case, with high enough value the tests works > without a problem. The question is if and/or what should be done about > this... We can try asking on bpf@vger.kernel.org, if they see it as bug. I'd push tests with a comment. Or setup() that bumps the limit: whatever current limit is, add 2MB to it, so single/few iteration(s) should always work.