From: Hechao Li <hechaol(a)fb.com>
[ Upstream commit 89cceaa939171fafa153d4bf637b39e396bbd785 ]
An error "implicit declaration of function 'reallocarray'" can be thrown
with the following steps:
$ cd tools/testing/selftests/bpf
$ make clean && make CC=<Path to GCC 4.8.5>
$ make clean && make CC=<Path to GCC 7.x>
The cause is that the feature folder generated by GCC 4.8.5 is not
removed, leaving feature-reallocarray being 1, which causes reallocarray
not defined when re-compliing with GCC 7.x. This diff adds feature
folder to EXTRA_CLEAN to avoid this problem.
v2: Rephrase the commit message.
Signed-off-by: Hechao Li <hechaol(a)fb.com>
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin(a)fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel(a)iogearbox.net>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal(a)kernel.org>
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile
index e36356e2377e..1c9511262947 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile
@@ -275,4 +275,5 @@ $(OUTPUT)/verifier/tests.h: $(VERIFIER_TESTS_DIR) $(VERIFIER_TEST_FILES)
) > $(VERIFIER_TESTS_H))
EXTRA_CLEAN := $(TEST_CUSTOM_PROGS) $(ALU32_BUILD_DIR) \
- $(VERIFIER_TESTS_H) $(PROG_TESTS_H) $(MAP_TESTS_H)
+ $(VERIFIER_TESTS_H) $(PROG_TESTS_H) $(MAP_TESTS_H) \
+ feature
--
2.20.1
From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast(a)kernel.org>
[ Upstream commit 7c0c6095d48dcd0e67c917aa73cdbb2715aafc36 ]
Adjust scale tests to check for new jmp sequence limit.
BPF_JGT had to be changed to BPF_JEQ because the verifier was
too smart. It tracked the known safe range of R0 values
and pruned the search earlier before hitting exact 8192 limit.
bpf_semi_rand_get() was too (un)?lucky.
k = 0; was missing in bpf_fill_scale2.
It was testing a bit shorter sequence of jumps than intended.
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast(a)kernel.org>
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin(a)fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel(a)iogearbox.net>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal(a)kernel.org>
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 31 +++++++++++----------
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
index 288cb740e005..6438d4dc8ae1 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
@@ -207,33 +207,35 @@ static void bpf_fill_rand_ld_dw(struct bpf_test *self)
self->retval = (uint32_t)res;
}
-/* test the sequence of 1k jumps */
+#define MAX_JMP_SEQ 8192
+
+/* test the sequence of 8k jumps */
static void bpf_fill_scale1(struct bpf_test *self)
{
struct bpf_insn *insn = self->fill_insns;
int i = 0, k = 0;
insn[i++] = BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_1);
- /* test to check that the sequence of 1024 jumps is acceptable */
- while (k++ < 1024) {
+ /* test to check that the long sequence of jumps is acceptable */
+ while (k++ < MAX_JMP_SEQ) {
insn[i++] = BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0,
BPF_FUNC_get_prandom_u32);
- insn[i++] = BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JGT, BPF_REG_0, bpf_semi_rand_get(), 2);
+ insn[i++] = BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, bpf_semi_rand_get(), 2);
insn[i++] = BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10);
insn[i++] = BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_6,
-8 * (k % 64 + 1));
}
- /* every jump adds 1024 steps to insn_processed, so to stay exactly
- * within 1m limit add MAX_TEST_INSNS - 1025 MOVs and 1 EXIT
+ /* every jump adds 1 step to insn_processed, so to stay exactly
+ * within 1m limit add MAX_TEST_INSNS - MAX_JMP_SEQ - 1 MOVs and 1 EXIT
*/
- while (i < MAX_TEST_INSNS - 1025)
+ while (i < MAX_TEST_INSNS - MAX_JMP_SEQ - 1)
insn[i++] = BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_MOV, BPF_REG_0, 42);
insn[i] = BPF_EXIT_INSN();
self->prog_len = i + 1;
self->retval = 42;
}
-/* test the sequence of 1k jumps in inner most function (function depth 8)*/
+/* test the sequence of 8k jumps in inner most function (function depth 8)*/
static void bpf_fill_scale2(struct bpf_test *self)
{
struct bpf_insn *insn = self->fill_insns;
@@ -245,19 +247,20 @@ static void bpf_fill_scale2(struct bpf_test *self)
insn[i++] = BPF_EXIT_INSN();
}
insn[i++] = BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_1);
- /* test to check that the sequence of 1024 jumps is acceptable */
- while (k++ < 1024) {
+ /* test to check that the long sequence of jumps is acceptable */
+ k = 0;
+ while (k++ < MAX_JMP_SEQ) {
insn[i++] = BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0,
BPF_FUNC_get_prandom_u32);
- insn[i++] = BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JGT, BPF_REG_0, bpf_semi_rand_get(), 2);
+ insn[i++] = BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, bpf_semi_rand_get(), 2);
insn[i++] = BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10);
insn[i++] = BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_6,
-8 * (k % (64 - 4 * FUNC_NEST) + 1));
}
- /* every jump adds 1024 steps to insn_processed, so to stay exactly
- * within 1m limit add MAX_TEST_INSNS - 1025 MOVs and 1 EXIT
+ /* every jump adds 1 step to insn_processed, so to stay exactly
+ * within 1m limit add MAX_TEST_INSNS - MAX_JMP_SEQ - 1 MOVs and 1 EXIT
*/
- while (i < MAX_TEST_INSNS - 1025)
+ while (i < MAX_TEST_INSNS - MAX_JMP_SEQ - 1)
insn[i++] = BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_MOV, BPF_REG_0, 42);
insn[i] = BPF_EXIT_INSN();
self->prog_len = i + 1;
--
2.20.1
From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast(a)kernel.org>
[ Upstream commit 7c0c6095d48dcd0e67c917aa73cdbb2715aafc36 ]
Adjust scale tests to check for new jmp sequence limit.
BPF_JGT had to be changed to BPF_JEQ because the verifier was
too smart. It tracked the known safe range of R0 values
and pruned the search earlier before hitting exact 8192 limit.
bpf_semi_rand_get() was too (un)?lucky.
k = 0; was missing in bpf_fill_scale2.
It was testing a bit shorter sequence of jumps than intended.
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast(a)kernel.org>
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin(a)fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel(a)iogearbox.net>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal(a)kernel.org>
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 31 +++++++++++----------
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
index 288cb740e005..6438d4dc8ae1 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
@@ -207,33 +207,35 @@ static void bpf_fill_rand_ld_dw(struct bpf_test *self)
self->retval = (uint32_t)res;
}
-/* test the sequence of 1k jumps */
+#define MAX_JMP_SEQ 8192
+
+/* test the sequence of 8k jumps */
static void bpf_fill_scale1(struct bpf_test *self)
{
struct bpf_insn *insn = self->fill_insns;
int i = 0, k = 0;
insn[i++] = BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_1);
- /* test to check that the sequence of 1024 jumps is acceptable */
- while (k++ < 1024) {
+ /* test to check that the long sequence of jumps is acceptable */
+ while (k++ < MAX_JMP_SEQ) {
insn[i++] = BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0,
BPF_FUNC_get_prandom_u32);
- insn[i++] = BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JGT, BPF_REG_0, bpf_semi_rand_get(), 2);
+ insn[i++] = BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, bpf_semi_rand_get(), 2);
insn[i++] = BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10);
insn[i++] = BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_6,
-8 * (k % 64 + 1));
}
- /* every jump adds 1024 steps to insn_processed, so to stay exactly
- * within 1m limit add MAX_TEST_INSNS - 1025 MOVs and 1 EXIT
+ /* every jump adds 1 step to insn_processed, so to stay exactly
+ * within 1m limit add MAX_TEST_INSNS - MAX_JMP_SEQ - 1 MOVs and 1 EXIT
*/
- while (i < MAX_TEST_INSNS - 1025)
+ while (i < MAX_TEST_INSNS - MAX_JMP_SEQ - 1)
insn[i++] = BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_MOV, BPF_REG_0, 42);
insn[i] = BPF_EXIT_INSN();
self->prog_len = i + 1;
self->retval = 42;
}
-/* test the sequence of 1k jumps in inner most function (function depth 8)*/
+/* test the sequence of 8k jumps in inner most function (function depth 8)*/
static void bpf_fill_scale2(struct bpf_test *self)
{
struct bpf_insn *insn = self->fill_insns;
@@ -245,19 +247,20 @@ static void bpf_fill_scale2(struct bpf_test *self)
insn[i++] = BPF_EXIT_INSN();
}
insn[i++] = BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_1);
- /* test to check that the sequence of 1024 jumps is acceptable */
- while (k++ < 1024) {
+ /* test to check that the long sequence of jumps is acceptable */
+ k = 0;
+ while (k++ < MAX_JMP_SEQ) {
insn[i++] = BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0,
BPF_FUNC_get_prandom_u32);
- insn[i++] = BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JGT, BPF_REG_0, bpf_semi_rand_get(), 2);
+ insn[i++] = BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, bpf_semi_rand_get(), 2);
insn[i++] = BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10);
insn[i++] = BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_6,
-8 * (k % (64 - 4 * FUNC_NEST) + 1));
}
- /* every jump adds 1024 steps to insn_processed, so to stay exactly
- * within 1m limit add MAX_TEST_INSNS - 1025 MOVs and 1 EXIT
+ /* every jump adds 1 step to insn_processed, so to stay exactly
+ * within 1m limit add MAX_TEST_INSNS - MAX_JMP_SEQ - 1 MOVs and 1 EXIT
*/
- while (i < MAX_TEST_INSNS - 1025)
+ while (i < MAX_TEST_INSNS - MAX_JMP_SEQ - 1)
insn[i++] = BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_MOV, BPF_REG_0, 42);
insn[i] = BPF_EXIT_INSN();
self->prog_len = i + 1;
--
2.20.1
Hi Linus,
Please pull the following Kselftest update for Linux 5.3-rc1.
This Kselftest update for Linux 5.3-rc1 consists of build failure
fixes and minor code cleaning patch to remove duplicate headers.
diff is attached.
thanks,
-- Shuah
----------------------------------------------------------------
The following changes since commit 4b972a01a7da614b4796475f933094751a295a2f:
Linux 5.2-rc6 (2019-06-22 16:01:36 -0700)
are available in the Git repository at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/shuah/linux-kselftest
tags/linux-kselftest-5.3-rc1
for you to fetch changes up to ee8a84c60bcc1f1615bd9cb3edfe501e26cdc85b:
rseq/selftests: Fix Thumb mode build failure on arm32 (2019-07-08
13:00:41 -0600)
----------------------------------------------------------------
linux-kselftest-5.3-rc1
This Kselftest update for Linux 5.3-rc1 consists of build failure
fixes and minor code cleaning patch to remove duplicate headers.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mathieu Desnoyers (1):
rseq/selftests: Fix Thumb mode build failure on arm32
Naresh Kamboju (1):
selftests: dma-buf: Adding kernel config fragment CONFIG_UDMABUF=y
Shuah Khan (1):
selftests: timestamping: Fix SIOCGSTAMP undeclared build failure
YueHaibing (1):
kselftests: cgroup: remove duplicated include from test_freezer.c
tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_freezer.c | 1 -
tools/testing/selftests/drivers/dma-buf/config | 1 +
.../networking/timestamping/timestamping.c | 9 +---
tools/testing/selftests/rseq/rseq-arm.h | 61
++++++++++++----------
4 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/drivers/dma-buf/config
----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Paolo Pisati <paolo.pisati(a)canonical.com>
After applying patch 0001, all checksum implementations i could test (x86-64, arm64 and
arm), now agree on the return value.
Patch 0002 fix the expected return value for test #13: i did the calculation manually,
and it correspond.
Unfortunately, after applying patch 0001, other test cases now fail in
test_verifier:
$ sudo ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier
...
#417/p helper access to variable memory: size = 0 allowed on NULL (ARG_PTR_TO_MEM_OR_NULL) FAIL retval 65535 != 0
#419/p helper access to variable memory: size = 0 allowed on != NULL stack pointer (ARG_PTR_TO_MEM_OR_NULL) FAIL retval 65535 != 0
#423/p helper access to variable memory: size possible = 0 allowed on != NULL packet pointer (ARG_PTR_TO_MEM_OR_NULL) FAIL retval 65535 != 0
...
Summary: 1500 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 3 FAILED
And there are probably other fallouts in other selftests - someone familiar
should take a look before applying these patches.
Paolo Pisati (2):
bpf: bpf_csum_diff: fold the checksum before returning the
value
bpf, selftest: fix checksum value for test #13
net/core/filter.c | 2 +-
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/array_access.c | 2 +-
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--
2.17.1
From: Paolo Pisati <paolo.pisati(a)canonical.com>
After applying patch 0001, all checksum implementations i could test (x86-64, arm64 and
arm), now agree on the return value.
Patch 0002 fix the expected return value for test #13: i did the calculation manually,
and it correspond.
Unfortunately, after applying patch 0001, other test cases now fail in
test_verifier:
$ sudo ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier
...
#417/p helper access to variable memory: size = 0 allowed on NULL (ARG_PTR_TO_MEM_OR_NULL) FAIL retval 65535 != 0
#419/p helper access to variable memory: size = 0 allowed on != NULL stack pointer (ARG_PTR_TO_MEM_OR_NULL) FAIL retval 65535 != 0
#423/p helper access to variable memory: size possible = 0 allowed on != NULL packet pointer (ARG_PTR_TO_MEM_OR_NULL) FAIL retval 65535 != 0
...
Summary: 1500 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 3 FAILED
And there are probably other fallouts in other selftests - someone familiar
should take a look before applying these patches.
Paolo Pisati (2):
bpf: bpf_csum_diff: fold the checksum before returning the
value
bpf, selftest: fix checksum value for test #13
net/core/filter.c | 2 +-
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/array_access.c | 2 +-
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--
2.17.1
On 32-bit x86 when building with clang-9, the loop gets turned back into
an inefficient division that causes a link error:
kernel/time/vsyscall.o: In function `update_vsyscall':
vsyscall.c:(.text+0xe3): undefined reference to `__udivdi3'
Use the provided __iter_div_u64_rem() function that is meant to address
the same case in other files.
Fixes: 44f57d788e7d ("timekeeping: Provide a generic update_vsyscall() implementation")
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd(a)arndb.de>
---
kernel/time/vsyscall.c | 6 +-----
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/time/vsyscall.c b/kernel/time/vsyscall.c
index a80893180826..8cf3596a4ce6 100644
--- a/kernel/time/vsyscall.c
+++ b/kernel/time/vsyscall.c
@@ -104,11 +104,7 @@ void update_vsyscall(struct timekeeper *tk)
vdso_ts->sec = tk->xtime_sec + tk->wall_to_monotonic.tv_sec;
nsec = tk->tkr_mono.xtime_nsec >> tk->tkr_mono.shift;
nsec = nsec + tk->wall_to_monotonic.tv_nsec;
- while (nsec >= NSEC_PER_SEC) {
- nsec = nsec - NSEC_PER_SEC;
- vdso_ts->sec++;
- }
- vdso_ts->nsec = nsec;
+ vdso_ts->sec += __iter_div_u64_rem(nsec, NSEC_PER_SEC, &vdso_ts->nsec);
if (__arch_use_vsyscall(vdata))
update_vdso_data(vdata, tk);
--
2.20.0
By undefined run_test(), compile of breakpoint_test_arm64.c fails.
This changes arun_test to run_test.
----
reakpoint_test_arm64.c: In function 'main':
breakpoint_test_arm64.c:217:14: warning: implicit declaration of function
'run_test'; did you mean 'arun_test'? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
result = run_test(size, MIN(size, 8), wr, wp);
^~~~~~~~
arun_test
----
Fixes: 5821ba969511 ("selftests: Add test plan API to kselftest.h and adjust callers")
Signed-off-by: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <iwamatsu(a)nigauri.org>
---
tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/breakpoint_test_arm64.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/breakpoint_test_arm64.c b/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/breakpoint_test_arm64.c
index 58ed5eeab709..ad41ea69001b 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/breakpoint_test_arm64.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/breakpoint_test_arm64.c
@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ static bool set_watchpoint(pid_t pid, int size, int wp)
return false;
}
-static bool arun_test(int wr_size, int wp_size, int wr, int wp)
+static bool run_test(int wr_size, int wp_size, int wr, int wp)
{
int status;
siginfo_t siginfo;
--
2.20.1