public inbox for stable@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, andrii@kernel.org,
	daniel@iogearbox.net, martin.lau@linux.dev, yhs@fb.com,
	mykolal@fb.com, luizcap@amazon.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.1.y 0/6] BPF selftests fixes for 6.1 branch
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2023 22:33:01 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2023072321-sabbath-drank-d58b@gregkh> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230722004514.767618-1-eddyz87@gmail.com>

On Sat, Jul 22, 2023 at 03:45:08AM +0300, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> Recently Luiz Capitulino reported BPF test failure for kernel version
> 6.1.36 (see [7]). The following test_verifier test failed:
> "precise: ST insn causing spi > allocated_stack".
> After back-port of the following upstream commit:
> ecdf985d7615 ("bpf: track immediate values written to stack by BPF_ST instruction")
> 
> Investigation in [8] shows that test failure is not a bug, but a
> difference in BPF verifier behavior between upstream, where commits
> [1,2,3] by Andrii Nakryiko are present, and 6.1.36, where these
> commits are absent. Both Luiz and Greg suggested back-porting [1,2,3]
> from upstream to avoid divergences.
> 
> Commits [1,2,3] break test_progs selftest "align/packet variable offset",
> commit [4] fixes this selftest.
> 
> I did some additional testing using the following compiler versions:
> - Kernel compilation
>   - gcc version 11.3.0
> - BPF tests compilation
>   - clang version 16.0.6
>   - clang version 17.0.0 (fa46feb31481)
> 
> And identified a few more failing BPF selftests:
> - Tests failing with LLVM 16:
>   - test_verifier:
>     - precise: ST insn causing spi > allocated_stack FAIL (fixed by [1,2,3])
>   - test_progs:
>     - sk_assign                                           (fixed by [6])
> - Tests failing with LLVM 17:
>   - test_verifier:
>     - precise: ST insn causing spi > allocated_stack FAIL (fixed by [1,2,3])
>   - test_progs:
>     - fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace_verify                   (fixed by [5])
>     - fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace_return_code              (fixed by [5])
>     - sk_assign                                           (fixed by [6])
> 
> Commits [4,5,6] only apply to BPF selftests and don't change verifier
> behavior.
> 
> After applying all of the listed commits I have test_verifier,
> test_progs, test_progs-no_alu32 and test_maps passing on my x86 setup,
> both for LLVM 16 and LLVM 17.
> 
> Upstream commits in chronological order:
> [1] be2ef8161572 ("bpf: allow precision tracking for programs with subprogs")
> [2] f63181b6ae79 ("bpf: stop setting precise in current state")
> [3] 7a830b53c17b ("bpf: aggressively forget precise markings during state checkpointing")
> [4] 4f999b767769 ("selftests/bpf: make test_align selftest more robust")
> [5] 63d78b7e8ca2 ("selftests/bpf: Workaround verification failure for fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace_return_code")
> [6] 7ce878ca81bc ("selftests/bpf: Fix sk_assign on s390x")
> 
> Links:
> [7] https://lore.kernel.org/stable/935c4751-d368-df29-33a6-9f4fcae720fa@amazon.com/
> [8] https://lore.kernel.org/stable/c9b10a8a551edafdfec855fbd35757c6238ad258.camel@gmail.com/
> 
> Reported-by: Luiz Capitulino <luizcap@amazon.com>

You sent a bunch of patches, but didn't sign off on them :(

Can you resend these with your signed-off-by last, as you did do the
work here.

thanks,

greg k-h

      parent reply	other threads:[~2023-07-23 20:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-07-22  0:45 [PATCH 6.1.y 0/6] BPF selftests fixes for 6.1 branch Eduard Zingerman
2023-07-22  0:45 ` [PATCH 6.1.y 1/6] bpf: allow precision tracking for programs with subprogs Eduard Zingerman
2023-07-22  0:45 ` [PATCH 6.1.y 2/6] bpf: stop setting precise in current state Eduard Zingerman
2023-07-22  0:45 ` [PATCH 6.1.y 3/6] bpf: aggressively forget precise markings during state checkpointing Eduard Zingerman
2023-07-22  0:45 ` [PATCH 6.1.y 4/6] selftests/bpf: make test_align selftest more robust Eduard Zingerman
2023-07-22  0:45 ` [PATCH 6.1.y 5/6] selftests/bpf: Workaround verification failure for fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace_return_code Eduard Zingerman
2023-07-22  0:45 ` [PATCH 6.1.y 6/6] selftests/bpf: Fix sk_assign on s390x Eduard Zingerman
2023-07-23 20:33 ` Greg KH [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=2023072321-sabbath-drank-d58b@gregkh \
    --to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
    --cc=luizcap@amazon.com \
    --cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
    --cc=mykolal@fb.com \
    --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=yhs@fb.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox