bpftool: fix feature output when helper probes fail #405
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Author
|
Master branch: 20b87e7 |
Author
|
Master branch: 7b3a063 |
kernel-patches-bot
force-pushed
the
series/638363=>bpf-next
branch
from
d1b9054 to
bc551cc
Compare
Author
|
Master branch: bfa92e0 |
kernel-patches-bot
force-pushed
the
series/638363=>bpf-next
branch
from
bc551cc to
f314ea0
Compare
Author
|
At least one diff in series https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=638363 irrelevant now. Closing PR. |
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 29, 2023
…h cpu=v4 Bpf cpu=v4 support is introduced in [1] and Commit 4cd58e9 ("bpf: Support new 32bit offset jmp instruction") added support for new 32bit offset jmp instruction. Unfortunately, in function bpf_adj_delta_to_off(), for new branch insn with 32bit offset, the offset (plus/minor a small delta) compares to 16-bit offset bound [S16_MIN, S16_MAX], which caused the following verification failure: $ ./test_progs-cpuv4 -t verif_scale_pyperf180 ... insn 10 cannot be patched due to 16-bit range ... libbpf: failed to load object 'pyperf180.bpf.o' scale_test:FAIL:expect_success unexpected error: -12 (errno 12) #405 verif_scale_pyperf180:FAIL Note that due to recent llvm18 development, the patch [2] (already applied in bpf-next) needs to be applied to bpf tree for testing purpose. The fix is rather simple. For 32bit offset branch insn, the adjusted offset compares to [S32_MIN, S32_MAX] and then verification succeeded. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected] [2] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected] Fixes: 4cd58e9 ("bpf: Support new 32bit offset jmp instruction") Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 29, 2023
…h cpu=v4 Bpf cpu=v4 support is introduced in [1] and Commit 4cd58e9 ("bpf: Support new 32bit offset jmp instruction") added support for new 32bit offset jmp instruction. Unfortunately, in function bpf_adj_delta_to_off(), for new branch insn with 32bit offset, the offset (plus/minor a small delta) compares to 16-bit offset bound [S16_MIN, S16_MAX], which caused the following verification failure: $ ./test_progs-cpuv4 -t verif_scale_pyperf180 ... insn 10 cannot be patched due to 16-bit range ... libbpf: failed to load object 'pyperf180.bpf.o' scale_test:FAIL:expect_success unexpected error: -12 (errno 12) #405 verif_scale_pyperf180:FAIL Note that due to recent llvm18 development, the patch [2] (already applied in bpf-next) needs to be applied to bpf tree for testing purpose. The fix is rather simple. For 32bit offset branch insn, the adjusted offset compares to [S32_MIN, S32_MAX] and then verification succeeded. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected] [2] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected] Fixes: 4cd58e9 ("bpf: Support new 32bit offset jmp instruction") Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]> Acked-by: Stanislav Fomichev <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 30, 2023
…h cpu=v4 Bpf cpu=v4 support is introduced in [1] and Commit 4cd58e9 ("bpf: Support new 32bit offset jmp instruction") added support for new 32bit offset jmp instruction. Unfortunately, in function bpf_adj_delta_to_off(), for new branch insn with 32bit offset, the offset (plus/minor a small delta) compares to 16-bit offset bound [S16_MIN, S16_MAX], which caused the following verification failure: $ ./test_progs-cpuv4 -t verif_scale_pyperf180 ... insn 10 cannot be patched due to 16-bit range ... libbpf: failed to load object 'pyperf180.bpf.o' scale_test:FAIL:expect_success unexpected error: -12 (errno 12) #405 verif_scale_pyperf180:FAIL Note that due to recent llvm18 development, the patch [2] (already applied in bpf-next) needs to be applied to bpf tree for testing purpose. The fix is rather simple. For 32bit offset branch insn, the adjusted offset compares to [S32_MIN, S32_MAX] and then verification succeeded. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected] [2] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected] Fixes: 4cd58e9 ("bpf: Support new 32bit offset jmp instruction") Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 30, 2023
…h cpu=v4 Bpf cpu=v4 support is introduced in [1] and Commit 4cd58e9 ("bpf: Support new 32bit offset jmp instruction") added support for new 32bit offset jmp instruction. Unfortunately, in function bpf_adj_delta_to_off(), for new branch insn with 32bit offset, the offset (plus/minor a small delta) compares to 16-bit offset bound [S16_MIN, S16_MAX], which caused the following verification failure: $ ./test_progs-cpuv4 -t verif_scale_pyperf180 ... insn 10 cannot be patched due to 16-bit range ... libbpf: failed to load object 'pyperf180.bpf.o' scale_test:FAIL:expect_success unexpected error: -12 (errno 12) #405 verif_scale_pyperf180:FAIL Note that due to recent llvm18 development, the patch [2] (already applied in bpf-next) needs to be applied to bpf tree for testing purpose. The fix is rather simple. For 32bit offset branch insn, the adjusted offset compares to [S32_MIN, S32_MAX] and then verification succeeded. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected] [2] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected] Fixes: 4cd58e9 ("bpf: Support new 32bit offset jmp instruction") Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 1, 2023
…h cpu=v4 Bpf cpu=v4 support is introduced in [1] and Commit 4cd58e9 ("bpf: Support new 32bit offset jmp instruction") added support for new 32bit offset jmp instruction. Unfortunately, in function bpf_adj_delta_to_off(), for new branch insn with 32bit offset, the offset (plus/minor a small delta) compares to 16-bit offset bound [S16_MIN, S16_MAX], which caused the following verification failure: $ ./test_progs-cpuv4 -t verif_scale_pyperf180 ... insn 10 cannot be patched due to 16-bit range ... libbpf: failed to load object 'pyperf180.bpf.o' scale_test:FAIL:expect_success unexpected error: -12 (errno 12) #405 verif_scale_pyperf180:FAIL Note that due to recent llvm18 development, the patch [2] (already applied in bpf-next) needs to be applied to bpf tree for testing purpose. The fix is rather simple. For 32bit offset branch insn, the adjusted offset compares to [S32_MIN, S32_MAX] and then verification succeeded. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected] [2] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected] Fixes: 4cd58e9 ("bpf: Support new 32bit offset jmp instruction") Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 1, 2023
…h cpu=v4 Bpf cpu=v4 support is introduced in [1] and Commit 4cd58e9 ("bpf: Support new 32bit offset jmp instruction") added support for new 32bit offset jmp instruction. Unfortunately, in function bpf_adj_delta_to_off(), for new branch insn with 32bit offset, the offset (plus/minor a small delta) compares to 16-bit offset bound [S16_MIN, S16_MAX], which caused the following verification failure: $ ./test_progs-cpuv4 -t verif_scale_pyperf180 ... insn 10 cannot be patched due to 16-bit range ... libbpf: failed to load object 'pyperf180.bpf.o' scale_test:FAIL:expect_success unexpected error: -12 (errno 12) #405 verif_scale_pyperf180:FAIL Note that due to recent llvm18 development, the patch [2] (already applied in bpf-next) needs to be applied to bpf tree for testing purpose. The fix is rather simple. For 32bit offset branch insn, the adjusted offset compares to [S32_MIN, S32_MAX] and then verification succeeded. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected] [2] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected] Fixes: 4cd58e9 ("bpf: Support new 32bit offset jmp instruction") Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 1, 2023
…h cpu=v4 Bpf cpu=v4 support is introduced in [1] and Commit 4cd58e9 ("bpf: Support new 32bit offset jmp instruction") added support for new 32bit offset jmp instruction. Unfortunately, in function bpf_adj_delta_to_off(), for new branch insn with 32bit offset, the offset (plus/minor a small delta) compares to 16-bit offset bound [S16_MIN, S16_MAX], which caused the following verification failure: $ ./test_progs-cpuv4 -t verif_scale_pyperf180 ... insn 10 cannot be patched due to 16-bit range ... libbpf: failed to load object 'pyperf180.bpf.o' scale_test:FAIL:expect_success unexpected error: -12 (errno 12) #405 verif_scale_pyperf180:FAIL Note that due to recent llvm18 development, the patch [2] (already applied in bpf-next) needs to be applied to bpf tree for testing purpose. The fix is rather simple. For 32bit offset branch insn, the adjusted offset compares to [S32_MIN, S32_MAX] and then verification succeeded. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected] [2] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected] Fixes: 4cd58e9 ("bpf: Support new 32bit offset jmp instruction") Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 24, 2025
Use BPF_TRAMP_F_INDIRECT flag to detect struct ops and emit proper prologue and epilogue for this case. With this patch, all of the struct_ops related testcases (except struct_ops_multi_pages) passed on LoongArch. The testcase struct_ops_multi_pages failed is because the actual image_pages_cnt is 40 which is bigger than MAX_TRAMP_IMAGE_PAGES. Before: $ sudo ./test_progs -t struct_ops -d struct_ops_multi_pages ... WATCHDOG: test case struct_ops_module/struct_ops_load executes for 10 seconds... After: $ sudo ./test_progs -t struct_ops -d struct_ops_multi_pages ... #15 bad_struct_ops:OK ... #399 struct_ops_autocreate:OK ... #400 struct_ops_kptr_return:OK ... #401 struct_ops_maybe_null:OK ... #402 struct_ops_module:OK ... #404 struct_ops_no_cfi:OK ... #405 struct_ops_private_stack:SKIP ... #406 struct_ops_refcounted:OK Summary: 8/25 PASSED, 3 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 26, 2025
Use BPF_TRAMP_F_INDIRECT flag to detect struct ops and emit proper prologue and epilogue for this case. With this patch, all of the struct_ops related testcases (except struct_ops_multi_pages) passed on LoongArch. The testcase struct_ops_multi_pages failed is because the actual image_pages_cnt is 40 which is bigger than MAX_TRAMP_IMAGE_PAGES. Before: $ sudo ./test_progs -t struct_ops -d struct_ops_multi_pages ... WATCHDOG: test case struct_ops_module/struct_ops_load executes for 10 seconds... After: $ sudo ./test_progs -t struct_ops -d struct_ops_multi_pages ... #15 bad_struct_ops:OK ... #399 struct_ops_autocreate:OK ... #400 struct_ops_kptr_return:OK ... #401 struct_ops_maybe_null:OK ... #402 struct_ops_module:OK ... #404 struct_ops_no_cfi:OK ... #405 struct_ops_private_stack:SKIP ... #406 struct_ops_refcounted:OK Summary: 8/25 PASSED, 3 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 26, 2025
Use BPF_TRAMP_F_INDIRECT flag to detect struct ops and emit proper prologue and epilogue for this case. With this patch, all of the struct_ops related testcases (except struct_ops_multi_pages) passed on LoongArch. The testcase struct_ops_multi_pages failed is because the actual image_pages_cnt is 40 which is bigger than MAX_TRAMP_IMAGE_PAGES. Before: $ sudo ./test_progs -t struct_ops -d struct_ops_multi_pages ... WATCHDOG: test case struct_ops_module/struct_ops_load executes for 10 seconds... After: $ sudo ./test_progs -t struct_ops -d struct_ops_multi_pages ... #15 bad_struct_ops:OK ... #399 struct_ops_autocreate:OK ... #400 struct_ops_kptr_return:OK ... #401 struct_ops_maybe_null:OK ... #402 struct_ops_module:OK ... #404 struct_ops_no_cfi:OK ... #405 struct_ops_private_stack:SKIP ... #406 struct_ops_refcounted:OK Summary: 8/25 PASSED, 3 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 30, 2025
Use BPF_TRAMP_F_INDIRECT flag to detect struct ops and emit proper prologue and epilogue for this case. With this patch, all of the struct_ops related testcases (except struct_ops_multi_pages) passed on LoongArch. The testcase struct_ops_multi_pages failed is because the actual image_pages_cnt is 40 which is bigger than MAX_TRAMP_IMAGE_PAGES. Before: $ sudo ./test_progs -t struct_ops -d struct_ops_multi_pages ... WATCHDOG: test case struct_ops_module/struct_ops_load executes for 10 seconds... After: $ sudo ./test_progs -t struct_ops -d struct_ops_multi_pages ... #15 bad_struct_ops:OK ... #399 struct_ops_autocreate:OK ... #400 struct_ops_kptr_return:OK ... #401 struct_ops_maybe_null:OK ... #402 struct_ops_module:OK ... #404 struct_ops_no_cfi:OK ... #405 struct_ops_private_stack:SKIP ... #406 struct_ops_refcounted:OK Summary: 8/25 PASSED, 3 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 30, 2025
Use BPF_TRAMP_F_INDIRECT flag to detect struct ops and emit proper prologue and epilogue for this case. With this patch, all of the struct_ops related testcases (except struct_ops_multi_pages) passed on LoongArch. The testcase struct_ops_multi_pages failed is because the actual image_pages_cnt is 40 which is bigger than MAX_TRAMP_IMAGE_PAGES. Before: $ sudo ./test_progs -t struct_ops -d struct_ops_multi_pages ... WATCHDOG: test case struct_ops_module/struct_ops_load executes for 10 seconds... After: $ sudo ./test_progs -t struct_ops -d struct_ops_multi_pages ... #15 bad_struct_ops:OK ... #399 struct_ops_autocreate:OK ... #400 struct_ops_kptr_return:OK ... #401 struct_ops_maybe_null:OK ... #402 struct_ops_module:OK ... #404 struct_ops_no_cfi:OK ... #405 struct_ops_private_stack:SKIP ... #406 struct_ops_refcounted:OK Summary: 8/25 PASSED, 3 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 31, 2025
Use BPF_TRAMP_F_INDIRECT flag to detect struct ops and emit proper prologue and epilogue for this case. With this patch, all of the struct_ops related testcases (except struct_ops_multi_pages) passed on LoongArch. The testcase struct_ops_multi_pages failed is because the actual image_pages_cnt is 40 which is bigger than MAX_TRAMP_IMAGE_PAGES. Before: $ sudo ./test_progs -t struct_ops -d struct_ops_multi_pages ... WATCHDOG: test case struct_ops_module/struct_ops_load executes for 10 seconds... After: $ sudo ./test_progs -t struct_ops -d struct_ops_multi_pages ... #15 bad_struct_ops:OK ... #399 struct_ops_autocreate:OK ... #400 struct_ops_kptr_return:OK ... #401 struct_ops_maybe_null:OK ... #402 struct_ops_module:OK ... #404 struct_ops_no_cfi:OK ... #405 struct_ops_private_stack:SKIP ... #406 struct_ops_refcounted:OK Summary: 8/25 PASSED, 3 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 9, 2025
Use BPF_TRAMP_F_INDIRECT flag to detect struct ops and emit proper prologue and epilogue for this case. With this patch, all of the struct_ops related testcases (except struct_ops_multi_pages) passed on LoongArch. The testcase struct_ops_multi_pages failed is because the actual image_pages_cnt is 40 which is bigger than MAX_TRAMP_IMAGE_PAGES. Before: $ sudo ./test_progs -t struct_ops -d struct_ops_multi_pages ... WATCHDOG: test case struct_ops_module/struct_ops_load executes for 10 seconds... After: $ sudo ./test_progs -t struct_ops -d struct_ops_multi_pages ... #15 bad_struct_ops:OK ... #399 struct_ops_autocreate:OK ... #400 struct_ops_kptr_return:OK ... #401 struct_ops_maybe_null:OK ... #402 struct_ops_module:OK ... #404 struct_ops_no_cfi:OK ... #405 struct_ops_private_stack:SKIP ... #406 struct_ops_refcounted:OK Summary: 8/25 PASSED, 3 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Huacai Chen <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Pull request for series with
subject: bpftool: fix feature output when helper probes fail
version: 1
url: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=638363