Re: [5.10, 5.15] New bpf kselftest failure

[Luiz Capitulino <luizcap@amazon.com>]

On 2023-07-18 08:31, Eduard Zingerman wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 2023-07-18 at 01:57 +0300, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
>> [...]
>> Still, when I cherry-pick [0,1,2,3] `./test_progs -a setget_sockopt` is failing.
>> I'll investigate this failure but don't think I'll finish today.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Alternatively, if the goal is to minimize amount of changes, we can
>> disable or modify the 'precise: ST insn causing spi > allocated_stack'.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Commits (in chronological order):
>> [0] be2ef8161572 ("bpf: allow precision tracking for programs with subprogs")
>> [1] f63181b6ae79 ("bpf: stop setting precise in current state")
>> [2] 7a830b53c17b ("bpf: aggressively forget precise markings during state checkpointing")
>> [3] 4f999b767769 ("selftests/bpf: make test_align selftest more robust")
>> [4] 07d90c72efbe ("Merge branch 'BPF verifier precision tracking improvements'")
>> [5] ecdf985d7615 ("bpf: track immediate values written to stack by BPF_ST instruction")
> 
> I made a mistake, while resolving merge conflict for [0] yesterday.
> After correction the `./test_progs -a setget_sockopt` passes.
> I also noted that the following tests fail on v6.1.36:
> 
>    ./test_progs -a sk_assign,fexit_bpf2bpf
> 
> These tests are fixed by back-porting the following upstream commits:
> - 7ce878ca81bc ("selftests/bpf: Fix sk_assign on s390x")
> - 63d78b7e8ca2 ("selftests/bpf: Workaround verification failure for fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace_return_code")
> 
> I pushed modified version of v6.1.36 to my github account, it has
> test_verifier, test_progs, test_progs-no_alu32 and test_maps passing
> (on my x86 setup):
> 
>    https://github.com/eddyz87/bpf/commits/v6.1.36-with-fixes
> 
> Do you need any additional actions from my side?

First, thank you very much for your work on this and getting the tests
passing on 6.1.

In terms of action items, have you checked this situation in 5.10 and
5.15? For 5.10, we also need 4237e9f4a96228ccc8a7abe5e4b30834323cd353
otherwise the bpf tests don't even build there.

Also, would you know if something important is broken for users or is
this just a small behavior difference between kernels?

- Luiz