On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 3:13 PM Jordan Rife wrote:
>
> Andrii,
>
> It looks like the PR bot dropped one of the commits from the patch
> series which is why it didn't build.
>
> > selftests/bpf: Handle ATTACH_REJECT test cases
>
> Is there any way to get it to recreate the PR with all 17 patches?
On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 12:08 PM Jordan Rife wrote:
>
> This patch series migrates remaining tests from bpf/test_sock_addr.c to
> prog_tests/sock_addr.c and progs/verifier_sock_addr.c in order to fully
> retire the old-style test program and expands test coverage to test
> previously untested
On Wed, May 1, 2024 at 4:21 AM Colin Ian King wrote:
>
> There are two spelling mistakes in .descr literal strings. Fix them.
>
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sockopt.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
This doesn't
On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 8:15 AM Xu Kuohai wrote:
>
> On 4/27/2024 4:36 AM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 7:26 PM Xu Kuohai wrote:
> >>
> >> On 4/24/2024 5:55 AM, Yonghong Song wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 4/20/24 1:33 AM
On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 7:26 PM Xu Kuohai wrote:
>
> On 4/24/2024 5:55 AM, Yonghong Song wrote:
> >
> > On 4/20/24 1:33 AM, Xu Kuohai wrote:
> >> On 4/20/2024 7:00 AM, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 2024-04-11 at 20:27 +0800, Xu Kuohai wrote:
> From: Xu Kuohai
>
> With lsm
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 5:24 AM Xu Kuohai wrote:
>
> From: Xu Kuohai
>
> After checking lsm hook return range in verifier, the test case
> "test_progs -t test_lsm" failed, and the failure log says:
>
> libbpf: prog 'test_int_hook': BPF program load failed: Invalid argument
> libbpf: prog
On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 7:06 AM Andrea Righi wrote:
>
> Add a testcase for the ring_buffer__consume_n() API.
>
> The test produces multiple samples in a ring buffer, using a
> sys_getpid() fentry prog, and consumes them from user-space in batches,
> rather than consuming all of them greedily,
On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 2:10 AM Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
>
> Allows to test if allocation/free works
>
> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Tissoires
>
> ---
>
> changes in v2:
> - dropped mark_precise checks
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_experimental.h | 1 +
>
On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 10:39 AM Andrii Nakryiko
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 2:20 AM Andrea Righi
> wrote:
> >
> > Add tests for new API ring__consume_n() and ring_buffer__consume_n().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andrea Righi
> > ---
> > tools/t
On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 2:20 AM Andrea Righi wrote:
>
> In some cases, instead of always consuming all items from ring buffers
> in a greedy way, we may want to consume up to a certain amount of items,
> for example when we need to copy items from the BPF ring buffer to a
> limited user buffer.
>
On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 2:20 AM Andrea Righi wrote:
>
> Add tests for new API ring__consume_n() and ring_buffer__consume_n().
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrea Righi
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ringbuf.c | 8
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git
On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 10:52 AM Jiri Olsa wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 08:27:55AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 16:28:33 -0700
> > Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> >
> > > I thought I'll just ask instead of digging through code, sorry for
On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 8:10 AM Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:43:46 +0800
> 梦龙董 wrote:
>
> > I have done a simple benchmark on creating 1000
> > trampolines. It is slow, quite slow, which consume up to
> > 60s. We can't do it this way.
> >
> > Now, I have a bad idea. How about
On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 12:20 PM Jordan Rife wrote:
>
> sock_addr_testmod provides a mechanism for the sock_addr_kern prog_test
> to drive socket operations in kernel space. On init, one of the
> following socket operations is performed based on the module parameters:
> kernel_bind(),
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 11:54 AM Ian Rogers wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 10:49 AM Andrii Nakryiko
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 9, 2024 at 6:05 PM Ian Rogers wrote:
> > >
> > > libbpf depends upon linux/err.h which has a linux/compiler.h
> > >
nostic ignored "-Wformat-nonliteral"
>
> -#define __printf(a, b) __attribute__((format(printf, a, b)))
> +#ifndef __printf
> +# define __printf(a, b)__attribute__((format(printf, a, b)))
styling nit: don't add spaces between # and define, please
overall LGTM
Acked-by: Andr
On Sun, Jan 28, 2024 at 11:09 PM Björn Töpel wrote:
>
> From: Björn Töpel
>
> Currently, "make install" does not install the required test_progs
> "extra files" (e.g. kernel modules, helper shell scripts, etc.) for
> the BPF machine flavors (e.g. cpuv4).
>
> Add the missing "extra files"
On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 8:05 AM Björn Töpel wrote:
>
> From: Björn Töpel
>
> When using the "install" or targets depending on install, e.g.
> "gen_tar", the "runner extras" weren't included for the BPF machine
> flavors.
>
> Make sure the necessary helper scripts/tools are added to
>
On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 3:13 PM Vincent Li wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 2:26 PM Alexei Starovoitov
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 7:00 AM Vincent Li wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 4:23 AM Eduard Zingerman
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 2024-01-19 at 16:04
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 1:04 PM Eduard Zingerman wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2024-01-09 at 16:22 -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> [...]
> > > static bool stacksafe(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct
> > > bpf_func_state *old,
> > > struct b
On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 12:53 PM Maxim Mikityanskiy wrote:
>
> From: Eduard Zingerman
>
> Check that stacksafe() considers the following old vs cur stack spill
> state combinations equivalent:
> - spill of unbound scalar vs combination of STACK_{MISC,ZERO,INVALID}
> - STACK_MISC vs spill of
On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 12:53 PM Maxim Mikityanskiy wrote:
>
> From: Eduard Zingerman
>
> Changes for scalar ID tracking of spilled unbound scalars lead to
> certain verification performance regression. This commit mitigates the
> regression by exploiting the following properties maintained by
>
On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 12:53 PM Maxim Mikityanskiy wrote:
>
> From: Maxim Mikityanskiy
>
> The previous commit allowed to preserve boundaries and track IDs of
> scalars on narrowing fills. Add test cases for that pattern.
>
> Signed-off-by: Maxim Mikityanskiy
> Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman
> ---
On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 12:53 PM Maxim Mikityanskiy wrote:
>
> From: Maxim Mikityanskiy
>
> When the width of a fill is smaller than the width of the preceding
> spill, the information about scalar boundaries can still be preserved,
> as long as it's coerced to the right width (done by
On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 12:53 PM Maxim Mikityanskiy wrote:
>
> From: Maxim Mikityanskiy
>
> The previous commit implemented assigning IDs to registers holding
> scalars before spill. Add the test cases to check the new functionality.
>
> Signed-off-by: Maxim Mikityanskiy
> Acked-by: Eduard
t; Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong
> ---
> v5:
> - add some comments to the function that we add
> - add reg_not_equal_const()
> ---
> .../selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bounds.c | 62 +++
> 1 file changed, 62 insertions(+)
>
LGTM
Acked-by: Andri
-j
> Summary: 65/18959832 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
>
Thanks for running SLOW_TESTS=1 mode as well!
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko
> Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong
> ---
> v5:
> - add "{U32, U32, {0, U32_MAX}, {U32_MAX, U32_MAX}}"
> v4:
> - remove reduplicated s32 casting
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/reg_bounds.c
> b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/reg_bounds.c
> index 0c9abd279e18..3bf4ddd720a8 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests
On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 8:35 AM Kyle Huey wrote:
>
> The test sets a hardware breakpoint and uses a bpf program to suppress the
> side effects of a perf event sample, including I/O availability signals,
> SIGTRAPs, and decrementing the event counter limit, if the ip matches the
> expected value.
ised.
>
> Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Xu
> ---
nit: please drop "libbpf: " prefix from the patch subject, this is
"selftests/bpf: " actually
> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c | 2 +
> .../bpf/progs/verifier_bitfield_write.c
On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 12:14 PM Kyle Huey wrote:
>
> The test sets a hardware breakpoint and uses a bpf program to suppress the
> I/O availability signal if the ip matches the expected value.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kyle Huey
> ---
> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/perf_skip.c | 95
field_write.c
>
LGTM, but I'm not sure why we need all those __failure_unpriv, see
below. Regardless:
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c
> b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c
> index 5cfa7a6316b6..67b4948865a3 10
ting/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_misc.h | 1 +
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_loader.c| 7 +++
> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+)
>
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_misc.h
> b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_misc.h
&g
On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 8:06 PM Yonghong Song wrote:
>
>
> On 11/27/23 7:01 PM, Daniel Xu wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 02:45:11PM -0600, Daniel Xu wrote:
> >> On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 09:53:04PM -0800, Yonghong Song wrote:
> >>> On 11/27/23 12:44 AM, Yonghong Song wrote:
> On 11/26/23
On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 10:14 PM Yuran Pereira
wrote:
>
> Multiple files/programs in `tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/` still
> heavily use the `CHECK` macro, even when better `ASSERT_` alternatives are
> available.
>
> As it was already pointed out by Yonghong Song [1] in the bpf
On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 4:22 PM Daniel Xu wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 01:33:09PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 11:46 AM Daniel Xu wrote:
> > >
> > > Switching to vmlinux.h definitions seems to make the verifier very
> &
On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 11:46 AM Daniel Xu wrote:
>
> Switching to vmlinux.h definitions seems to make the verifier very
> unhappy with bitfield accesses. The error is:
>
> ; md.u.md2.dir = direction;
> 33: (69) r1 = *(u16 *)(r2 +11)
> misaligned stack access off (0x0; 0x0)+-64+11
On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 9:06 AM Tao Lyu wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I found the backtracking logic of the eBPF verifier is flawed
> when meeting 1) normal load and store instruction or
> 2) atomic memory instructions.
>
> # Normal load and store
>
> Here, I show one case about the normal load and store
On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 6:35 PM zhujun2 wrote:
>
> These variables are never referenced in the code, just remove them.
>
> Signed-off-by: zhujun2
> ---
Why do you stubbornly keep submitting the same untested and broken
patch, ignoring the feedback ([0])? Your changes don't even compile
39 matches
Mail list logo
