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=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED 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 C71BEC433E0 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 13:39:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A323920734 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 13:39:34 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1591796374; bh=gkee2SSh/tFEinUnp6fT1LIiPzohJCb+C+stHUJ09dY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=aa7oSNvLlScLq0AKTMoj+jJAcBbFQ9CKtcbUwgK8otm9RucZvdNoqydyN9bf12QQ+ Jfaasnb+hCtl8+bEqx6fTkLQ3G/K2nX/3mfBhgt2HH7KDIS3RQsd/VQE39TFkuGdlU xK8ffb52hxjl1tJuEQEtMU0HZmsV4/8cQcy+hbpE= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729197AbgFJNje (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jun 2020 09:39:34 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:36300 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726157AbgFJNje (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jun 2020 09:39:34 -0400 Received: from localhost (83-86-89-107.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl [83.86.89.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6672920734; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 13:39:32 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1591796372; bh=gkee2SSh/tFEinUnp6fT1LIiPzohJCb+C+stHUJ09dY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=CO13W9F92shT+aA9iAl5lqYg1YbAF0qIe8ka4qfRmO933FtHAMng0a8vLbIWMNys4 Kpw8tw/B7AyEmw6UIvFdH49brlhEUGIKtpKQaxCwqLl8A0UszhAAhgsYZCIs8Kt4SZ sr5AihGfkM+7DwIKK+DZKA/ZuA7q9XXSqNCX/RsQ= Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 15:39:26 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Lorenz Bauer Cc: Sasha Levin , stable@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team , kernel test robot Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19.y] selftests: bpf: fix use of undeclared RET_IF macro Message-ID: <20200610133926.GA1907610@kroah.com> References: <20200521144841.7074-1-lmb@cloudflare.com> <20200522000934.GM33628@sasha-vm> <20200610114956.GA1896587@kroah.com> <20200610122413.GA1900758@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 02:34:16PM +0100, Lorenz Bauer wrote: > On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 13:24, Greg KH wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 01:10:14PM +0100, Lorenz Bauer wrote: > > > On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 12:50, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 11:16:16AM +0100, Lorenz Bauer wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 01:09, Sasha Levin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 03:48:41PM +0100, Lorenz Bauer wrote: > > > > > > >commit 634efb750435 ("selftests: bpf: Reset global state between > > > > > > >reuseport test runs") uses a macro RET_IF which doesn't exist in > > > > > > >the v4.19 tree. It is defined as follows: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #define RET_IF(condition, tag, format...) ({ > > > > > > > if (CHECK_FAIL(condition)) { > > > > > > > printf(tag " " format); > > > > > > > return; > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > }) > > > > > > > > > > > > > >CHECK_FAIL in turn is defined as: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #define CHECK_FAIL(condition) ({ > > > > > > > int __ret = !!(condition); > > > > > > > int __save_errno = errno; > > > > > > > if (__ret) { > > > > > > > test__fail(); > > > > > > > fprintf(stdout, "%s:FAIL:%d\n", __func__, __LINE__); > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > errno = __save_errno; > > > > > > > __ret; > > > > > > > }) > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Replace occurences of RET_IF with CHECK. This will abort the test binary > > > > > > >if clearing the intermediate state fails. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Fixes: 634efb750435 ("selftests: bpf: Reset global state between reuseport test runs") > > > > > > >Reported-by: kernel test robot > > > > > > >Signed-off-by: Lorenz Bauer > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the backport Lorenz. We'll need to wait for it to make it > > > > > > into Linus's tree before queueing up for the stable trees. > > > > > > > > > > Apologies for sending the patch too early (?), I'm still new to this process. > > > > > I've just hit this on 4.19.127. Do you want me to re-submit the patch somewhere? > > > > > > > > Is this patch in Linus's tree yet? If so, just tell us the git commit > > > > id. If not, it needs to go there first before we can take it to any > > > > stable tree. > > > > > > The patch isn't in Linus' tree because the problem doesn't exist > > > there. It fixes a build problem on > > > v4.19 which was introduced by the backport of an earlier fix of mine, > > > commit 634efb750435 > > > ("selftests: bpf: Reset global state between reuseport test runs"). > > > > > > There is a similar fix from Andrii Nakryiko that went into 5.4 as > > > commit aee43146cc10 > > > ("selftest/bpf: fix backported test_select_reuseport selftest > > > changes"), which I hadn't seen > > > at the time. > > > > Ah, ok, that wasn't very obvious, sorry. I'll queue this up after the > > next round of kernels are released in a day or so... > > No, it was my bad. What can I do to avoid this next time? Be _VERY_ explicit as to why this is only a 4.19 patch, and what this means, and why it is so. We see hundreds of patches a day, and almost none of them are this type of "special" case, so it must have to stand-out as you are doing something not very usual. thanks, greg k-h