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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B8F7C001DF for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2023 07:28:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232747AbjHBH23 (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Aug 2023 03:28:29 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:37376 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232661AbjHBH22 (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Aug 2023 03:28:28 -0400 Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org (dfw.source.kernel.org [139.178.84.217]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3BED1BF for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2023 00:28:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64D5E617A5 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2023 07:28:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 539D0C433C8; Wed, 2 Aug 2023 07:28:25 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2023 09:28:23 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Pu Lehui Cc: Pu Lehui , stable@vger.kernel.org, Eduard Zingerman , Luiz Capitulino , Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , Andrii Nakryiko Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.10 0/6] Backporting for test_verifier failed Message-ID: <2023080230-absence-angriness-141b@gregkh> References: <20230801143700.1012887-1-pulehui@huaweicloud.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: stable@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 03:23:14PM +0800, Pu Lehui wrote: > Add CC gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Why? > I am not sure if the email address of is valid It is. > On 2023/8/1 22:36, Pu Lehui wrote: > > Luiz Capitulino reported the test_verifier test failed: > > "precise: ST insn causing spi > allocated_stack". > > And it was introduced by the following upstream commit: > > ecdf985d7615 ("bpf: track immediate values written to stack by BPF_ST instruction") > > > > Eduard's investigation [4] shows that test failure is not a bug, but a > > difference in BPF verifier behavior between upstream, where commits > > [1,2,3] by Andrii are present, and 5.10, where these commits are absent. > > > > Backporting strategy is consistent with Eduard in kernel version 6.1 [5], > > but with some conflicts in patch #1, #4 and #6 due to the bpf of 5.10 > > doesn't support more features. Both test_verifier and test_maps have > > passed, while test_progs and test_progs-no_alu32 with no new failure > > ceses. > > > > Commits of Andrii: > > [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") > > > > Links: > > [4] https://lore.kernel.org/stable/c9b10a8a551edafdfec855fbd35757c6238ad258.camel@gmail.com/ > > [5] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230724124223.1176479-2-eddyz87@gmail.com/ > > > > Andrii Nakryiko (4): > > bpf: allow precision tracking for programs with subprogs > > bpf: stop setting precise in current state > > bpf: aggressively forget precise markings during state checkpointing > > selftests/bpf: make test_align selftest more robust > > > > Ilya Leoshkevich (1): > > selftests/bpf: Fix sk_assign on s390x > > > > Yonghong Song (1): > > selftests/bpf: Workaround verification failure for > > fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace_return_code > > > > kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 175 ++++++++++++++++-- > > .../testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/align.c | 36 ++-- > > .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sk_assign.c | 25 ++- > > .../selftests/bpf/progs/connect4_prog.c | 2 +- > > .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_sk_assign.c | 11 ++ > > .../bpf/progs/test_sk_assign_libbpf.c | 3 + > > 6 files changed, 219 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-) > > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_sk_assign_libbpf.c > > What is the question here for me? confused, greg k-h