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=-17.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_GIT, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=unavailable 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 924E2C5B578 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 21:29:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F00621882 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 21:29:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="Oz++jnhL" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727361AbfGCV3L (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Jul 2019 17:29:11 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-f202.google.com ([209.85.210.202]:52358 "EHLO mail-pf1-f202.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726902AbfGCV3K (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Jul 2019 17:29:10 -0400 Received: by mail-pf1-f202.google.com with SMTP id a20so2232411pfn.19 for ; Wed, 03 Jul 2019 14:29:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=date:message-id:mime-version:subject:from:to:cc; bh=CgE+VohwMcJGdxE48xVXINshCDvVZZROM0YSvSs/nZc=; b=Oz++jnhL9NjxRAUFQ8xHj/kjaK5SYRAIfeHKqAeE0yluWI/88f2cYSC7wQHjNVymxO 3Wjfz6kfoYpsg+fumv7AOx8bo16cERcUEQKrvY5ENOP264eKDUIOaj9sT8g0rNA4hol1 uPCAKOWqe4fU8/sbdiYx9MrvNXJCCCUUbooCzN5oyUB17L3lkTMpZseuWV49X85VkiYE ATtjOuiydvF2MSCWeMwW/cJJAua7hpAw2tQJ/g5mi88FszMX6R9VASiBGM6LKPQBiCfd 4XdQ2XBBJb3sApBJtcVg3GGkAucWTsF49QEp6gf2ZFv4odnHraxYcVEYJ1uLxSGORK/r tiUw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:message-id:mime-version:subject:from:to:cc; bh=CgE+VohwMcJGdxE48xVXINshCDvVZZROM0YSvSs/nZc=; b=YG3dqSQwMSN209pAjpZToyWbO2+bi4q7xbfO+z/P3w3cF6wHYMU6cfFFwTduoy7QTV yfyjMX5ePL+QCqTpM9dNOxyyDL1yhXwpUSX3KC2aLOtaLZegzCM3myUb3gan7ppzF6e0 K2/aCgbayz86kHwhDeSrr3sdj5ttHsJ8//rOHrOqgUvcrmm/1a2ANbEXRUnKjTguTUrE fhoYi34YvF/I1vJWNGcfldtoc1XGLkZx5pX3Sn0Hp8fQDjlf52m6EweBhz/JYyrAbcUm uRt+iQCxem9cERY8E6TtE90eM8H+k+WQmdo/CkTJ774qUhEWOvThMyzyqXxtknbQ6r5T mKPw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXcJQ3jS2o0XZV1QIM5pI7PhqEho03Cgfb0rBBUx8DjiBt+nbsu SyR/Xtaff0UCsh0sPuP2DEfHaG1Vc+8S4YKJPpQzOS7hyOXxfyrH3u3pav5g2TlfytyLq5DOPi0 8yxagaUVOkgSRPAhsDE9r1NP9499eKrwDmZv1qU/h0XLuIHm8Xs4X8w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzuzzu2Mg63kpyc077g1axsioM4rPPlggjndgv/G6aX/yVsXzoTH86t3Xi2Cxe1r8YNOAXJq/I= X-Received: by 2002:a63:1226:: with SMTP id h38mr38749013pgl.196.1562189349900; Wed, 03 Jul 2019 14:29:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 14:29:07 -0700 Message-Id: <20190703212907.189141-1-sdf@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.22.0.410.gd8fdbe21b5-goog Subject: [PATCH bpf-next] selftests/bpf: fix test_align liveliness expectations From: Stanislav Fomichev To: netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org Cc: davem@davemloft.net, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, Stanislav Fomichev Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org Commit 2589726d12a1 ("bpf: introduce bounded loops") caused a change in the way some registers liveliness is reported in the test_align. Add missing "_w" to a couple of tests. Note, there are no offset changes! Fixes: 2589726d12a1 ("bpf: introduce bounded loops") Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev --- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c | 16 ++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c index 3c789d03b629..0262f7b374f9 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c @@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = { }, .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS, .matches = { - {7, "R0=pkt(id=0,off=8,r=8,imm=0)"}, + {7, "R0_w=pkt(id=0,off=8,r=8,imm=0)"}, {7, "R3_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=255,var_off=(0x0; 0xff))"}, {8, "R3_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=510,var_off=(0x0; 0x1fe))"}, {9, "R3_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"}, @@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = { /* Calculated offset in R6 has unknown value, but known * alignment of 4. */ - {8, "R2=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=8,imm=0)"}, + {8, "R2_w=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=8,imm=0)"}, {8, "R6_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"}, /* Offset is added to packet pointer R5, resulting in * known fixed offset, and variable offset from R6. @@ -405,7 +405,7 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = { /* Calculated offset in R6 has unknown value, but known * alignment of 4. */ - {8, "R2=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=8,imm=0)"}, + {8, "R2_w=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=8,imm=0)"}, {8, "R6_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"}, /* Adding 14 makes R6 be (4n+2) */ {9, "R6_w=inv(id=0,umin_value=14,umax_value=1034,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc))"}, @@ -473,12 +473,12 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = { /* (4n) + 14 == (4n+2). We blow our bounds, because * the add could overflow. */ - {7, "R5=inv(id=0,var_off=(0x2; 0xfffffffffffffffc))"}, + {7, "R5_w=inv(id=0,var_off=(0x2; 0xfffffffffffffffc))"}, /* Checked s>=0 */ {9, "R5=inv(id=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372036854775806,var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffffffffffc))"}, /* packet pointer + nonnegative (4n+2) */ {11, "R6_w=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372036854775806,var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffffffffffc))"}, - {13, "R4=pkt(id=1,off=4,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372036854775806,var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffffffffffc))"}, + {13, "R4_w=pkt(id=1,off=4,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372036854775806,var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffffffffffc))"}, /* NET_IP_ALIGN + (4n+2) == (4n), alignment is fine. * We checked the bounds, but it might have been able * to overflow if the packet pointer started in the @@ -486,7 +486,7 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = { * So we did not get a 'range' on R6, and the access * attempt will fail. */ - {15, "R6=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372036854775806,var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffffffffffc))"}, + {15, "R6_w=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372036854775806,var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffffffffffc))"}, } }, { @@ -521,7 +521,7 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = { /* Calculated offset in R6 has unknown value, but known * alignment of 4. */ - {7, "R2=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=8,imm=0)"}, + {7, "R2_w=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=8,imm=0)"}, {9, "R6_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"}, /* Adding 14 makes R6 be (4n+2) */ {10, "R6_w=inv(id=0,umin_value=14,umax_value=1034,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc))"}, @@ -574,7 +574,7 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = { /* Calculated offset in R6 has unknown value, but known * alignment of 4. */ - {7, "R2=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=8,imm=0)"}, + {7, "R2_w=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=8,imm=0)"}, {10, "R6_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=60,var_off=(0x0; 0x3c))"}, /* Adding 14 makes R6 be (4n+2) */ {11, "R6_w=inv(id=0,umin_value=14,umax_value=74,var_off=(0x2; 0x7c))"}, -- 2.22.0.410.gd8fdbe21b5-goog