From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4711AC4363D for ; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 22:04:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E24A920872 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 22:04:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=chromium.org header.i=@chromium.org header.b="IZM9CY72" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728649AbgJGWEq (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Oct 2020 18:04:46 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:46176 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728575AbgJGWEq (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Oct 2020 18:04:46 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-x42e.google.com (mail-wr1-x42e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42e]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 100DAC061755 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 15:04:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wr1-x42e.google.com with SMTP id z1so4067567wrt.3 for ; Wed, 07 Oct 2020 15:04:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=qzKsX49VoG3YhzcjmRNGWiHbb8DBTpj85pJrbDKwLr0=; b=IZM9CY72pOKpPM/P0UKNaXlFpL9RjY+y/paWQuT9QrsfUum9/7Ait9IDXXOoRPh9xq DqCxv5+sga5qMlWqkKRexfNS0nFVHphrUPvAMhNH8w3GOVrt8VL22Bin4RYjQn2l+ej7 Kc6vLRDS5psZF4EEbppAG12lqwS4WcNAsR84o= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=qzKsX49VoG3YhzcjmRNGWiHbb8DBTpj85pJrbDKwLr0=; b=ENfyY1XIzLP6Ge7bgdWn19lU50J9tEzAs8NewSar0BMw9zoi5WCD30o9ecHei0T3+W hw6Rdi1YUTNNUfNHKQD3FI5UeGXa0Kbfl1+ZiN0q6emAtiq6pLRSzOA0nzU2cnx6UhyK sM1Iilj4ML6Zx9Hw26UCtJVgoiHIneaG3itVzaMJ0l/8VkdqirJ8ds7YIQqBPGvaKwhl 3Dyykv7XC7MR0FcCt+JlUzvj244YGkZR5ZCua3k2tTHXvtgHYR+cZSUE4ogHJvnWz3am jutV24Yajg327OCnn+BEb96HVxcfRMmDwWZ/ygc3KUdmIKP/5XplHpXq0wH4t9LSQ0Jf uPJg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532zIeofdzTRCy1D9uOzFTDiD92579mCxKixlo8FnvtauDMhp0By 9tA+DCgm8wT6oh8qFgTK6jVqlbv2/hBlBEQ1Gt8HUA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzcvoOoXXvTVJE1Zo5SsHTeMWCCCb/w1GPrevvF32c4vKYvSLM71DpMtCqvmjtFrMOTGOm9y2aeZGsGzcwrd6M= X-Received: by 2002:adf:e711:: with SMTP id c17mr5782110wrm.359.1602108283122; Wed, 07 Oct 2020 15:04:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <71e1203f-5864-f86d-e587-67d92183b89b@fb.com> <549d23c4-bb83-2116-fb51-293a043e6f21@fb.com> In-Reply-To: <549d23c4-bb83-2116-fb51-293a043e6f21@fb.com> From: KP Singh Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 00:04:32 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Failure in test_local_storage at bpf-next To: Yonghong Song Cc: Alexei Starovoitov , Andrii Nakryiko , bpf , Andrii Nakryiko , Daniel Borkmann , Alexei Starovoitov Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 7:33 AM Yonghong Song wrote: > > > > On 10/6/20 10:18 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 9:31 PM Yonghong Song wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 10/6/20 6:23 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > >>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 5:31 PM KP Singh wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I noticed that test_local_storage is broken due to a BTF error at > >>>> bpf-next [67ed375530e2 ("samples: bpf: Driver interrupt statistics in > >>>> xdpsock")] > >>>> > >>>> ./test_progs -t test_local_storage > >>>> libbpf: prog 'socket_post_create': relo #0: parsing [28] struct socket + 0:0.1 2 > >>> > >>> This line is truncated, btw, please make sure you post the entire > >>> output next time. I just ran this again and it does not seem like it's truncated: ./test_progs -t test_local_storage libbpf: prog 'socket_post_create': relo #0: parsing [28] struct socket + 0:0.1 2 libbpf: prog 'socket_post_create': relo #0: failed to relocate: -22 libbpf: failed to perform CO-RE relocations: -22 libbpf: failed to load object 'local_storage' libbpf: failed to load BPF skeleton 'local_storage': -22 test_test_local_storage:FAIL:skel_load lsm skeleton failed Am I missing something? > >>> > >>> But, this seems like a bug in Clang, it produced invalid access index > >>> string "0:0.1", there shouldn't be any other separator except ':' in > >>> those strings. > >>> > >>> Yonghong, can you please take a look? This seems to be a very recent > >>> regression, I had to update to > >>> 6c7d713cf5d9bb188f1e73452a256386f0288bf7 sha from not-too-outdated > >>> version to repro this. > >> > >> Sorry. This indeed is a llvm regression. The guilty patch is > >> https://reviews.llvm.org/D88855 which adds NPM (new pass manager) > >> support for BPF. The patch just merged this morning, thanks for catching > >> the bug so fast. Since NPM is not used by default and the code > >> refactoring looks okay, so I did not run selftests. But, yah, it does > >> change some semantics of the code... > > > > but llvm tests were run, of course. > > Looks like we need to add more of them, so they can gate the landing. > > Right, just added two more tests to gate this particular kind of > failure. Also just pushed a new version which is simpler compared to > previous version. > > > > >> I just put a fix at https://reviews.llvm.org/D88942 . > >> Hopefully to merge soon. > > > > Thanks for the quick fix! Thank you so much! > >