Skip to content

use valid btf in bpf_program__set_attach_target(prog, 0, ...); #172

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

kernel-patches-bot
Copy link

Pull request for series with
subject: use valid btf in bpf_program__set_attach_target(prog, 0, ...);
version: 1
url: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/bpf/list/?series=359771

@kernel-patches-bot
Copy link
Author

@kernel-patches-bot
Copy link
Author

kernel-patches-bot and others added 2 commits October 5, 2020 07:04
bpf_program__set_attach_target() will always fail with fd=0 (attach to a
kernel symbol) because obj->btf_vmlinux is NULL and there is no way to
set it.

Fix this by explicitly calling libbpf_find_kernel_btf() in the function.

Signed-off-by: Luigi Rizzo <[email protected]>
@kernel-patches-bot
Copy link
Author

@kernel-patches-bot
Copy link
Author

At least one diff in series https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/bpf/list/?series=359771 irrelevant now. Closing PR.

@kernel-patches-bot kernel-patches-bot deleted the series/359771=>bpf-next branch October 7, 2020 01:45
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 5, 2024
Recent additions in BPF like cpu v4 instructions, test_bpf module
exhibits the following failures:

	test_bpf: #82 ALU_MOVSX | BPF_B jited:1 ret 2 != 1 (0x2 != 0x1)FAIL (1 times)
	test_bpf: #83 ALU_MOVSX | BPF_H jited:1 ret 2 != 1 (0x2 != 0x1)FAIL (1 times)
	test_bpf: #84 ALU64_MOVSX | BPF_B jited:1 ret 2 != 1 (0x2 != 0x1)FAIL (1 times)
	test_bpf: #85 ALU64_MOVSX | BPF_H jited:1 ret 2 != 1 (0x2 != 0x1)FAIL (1 times)
	test_bpf: #86 ALU64_MOVSX | BPF_W jited:1 ret 2 != 1 (0x2 != 0x1)FAIL (1 times)

	test_bpf: #165 ALU_SDIV_X: -6 / 2 = -3 jited:1 ret 2147483645 != -3 (0x7ffffffd != 0xfffffffd)FAIL (1 times)
	test_bpf: #166 ALU_SDIV_K: -6 / 2 = -3 jited:1 ret 2147483645 != -3 (0x7ffffffd != 0xfffffffd)FAIL (1 times)

	test_bpf: #169 ALU_SMOD_X: -7 % 2 = -1 jited:1 ret 1 != -1 (0x1 != 0xffffffff)FAIL (1 times)
	test_bpf: #170 ALU_SMOD_K: -7 % 2 = -1 jited:1 ret 1 != -1 (0x1 != 0xffffffff)FAIL (1 times)

	test_bpf: #172 ALU64_SMOD_K: -7 % 2 = -1 jited:1 ret 1 != -1 (0x1 != 0xffffffff)FAIL (1 times)

	test_bpf: #313 BSWAP 16: 0x0123456789abcdef -> 0xefcd
	eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported
	jited:0 301 PASS
	test_bpf: #314 BSWAP 32: 0x0123456789abcdef -> 0xefcdab89
	eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported
	jited:0 555 PASS
	test_bpf: #315 BSWAP 64: 0x0123456789abcdef -> 0x67452301
	eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported
	jited:0 268 PASS
	test_bpf: #316 BSWAP 64: 0x0123456789abcdef >> 32 -> 0xefcdab89
	eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported
	jited:0 269 PASS
	test_bpf: #317 BSWAP 16: 0xfedcba9876543210 -> 0x1032
	eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported
	jited:0 460 PASS
	test_bpf: #318 BSWAP 32: 0xfedcba9876543210 -> 0x10325476
	eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported
	jited:0 320 PASS
	test_bpf: #319 BSWAP 64: 0xfedcba9876543210 -> 0x98badcfe
	eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported
	jited:0 222 PASS
	test_bpf: #320 BSWAP 64: 0xfedcba9876543210 >> 32 -> 0x10325476
	eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported
	jited:0 273 PASS

	test_bpf: #344 BPF_LDX_MEMSX | BPF_B
	eBPF filter opcode 0091 (@5) unsupported
	jited:0 432 PASS
	test_bpf: #345 BPF_LDX_MEMSX | BPF_H
	eBPF filter opcode 0089 (@5) unsupported
	jited:0 381 PASS
	test_bpf: #346 BPF_LDX_MEMSX | BPF_W
	eBPF filter opcode 0081 (@5) unsupported
	jited:0 505 PASS

	test_bpf: #490 JMP32_JA: Unconditional jump: if (true) return 1
	eBPF filter opcode 0006 (@1) unsupported
	jited:0 261 PASS

	test_bpf: Summary: 1040 PASSED, 10 FAILED, [924/1038 JIT'ed]

Fix them by adding missing processing.

Fixes: daabb2b ("bpf/tests: add tests for cpuv4 instructions")
Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant