* [PATCH bpf] selftests: bpf: add zero extend checks for ALU32 and/or/xor
@ 2019-05-22 9:23 Björn Töpel
2019-05-22 18:13 ` Y Song
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Björn Töpel @ 2019-05-22 9:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: daniel, ast, netdev; +Cc: Björn Töpel, bpf
Add three tests to test_verifier/basic_instr that make sure that the
high 32-bits of the destination register is cleared after an ALU32
and/or/xor.
Signed-off-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@gmail.com>
---
.../selftests/bpf/verifier/basic_instr.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 39 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/basic_instr.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/basic_instr.c
index ed91a7b9a456..4d844089938e 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/basic_instr.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/basic_instr.c
@@ -132,3 +132,42 @@
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
.result = ACCEPT,
},
+{
+ "and32 reg zero extend check",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, -1),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, -2),
+ BPF_ALU32_REG(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_RSH, BPF_REG_0, 32),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
+ .result = ACCEPT,
+ .retval = 0,
+},
+{
+ "or32 reg zero extend check",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, -1),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, -2),
+ BPF_ALU32_REG(BPF_OR, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_RSH, BPF_REG_0, 32),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
+ .result = ACCEPT,
+ .retval = 0,
+},
+{
+ "xor32 reg zero extend check",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, -1),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 0),
+ BPF_ALU32_REG(BPF_XOR, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_RSH, BPF_REG_0, 32),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
+ .result = ACCEPT,
+ .retval = 0,
+},
--
2.20.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH bpf] selftests: bpf: add zero extend checks for ALU32 and/or/xor
2019-05-22 9:23 [PATCH bpf] selftests: bpf: add zero extend checks for ALU32 and/or/xor Björn Töpel
@ 2019-05-22 18:13 ` Y Song
2019-05-22 20:46 ` Björn Töpel
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Y Song @ 2019-05-22 18:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Björn Töpel; +Cc: Daniel Borkmann, Alexei Starovoitov, netdev, bpf
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 2:25 AM Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Add three tests to test_verifier/basic_instr that make sure that the
> high 32-bits of the destination register is cleared after an ALU32
> and/or/xor.
>
> Signed-off-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@gmail.com>
I think the patch intends for bpf-next, right? The patch itself looks
good to me.
Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
> ---
> .../selftests/bpf/verifier/basic_instr.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/basic_instr.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/basic_instr.c
> index ed91a7b9a456..4d844089938e 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/basic_instr.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/basic_instr.c
> @@ -132,3 +132,42 @@
> .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
> .result = ACCEPT,
> },
> +{
> + "and32 reg zero extend check",
> + .insns = {
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, -1),
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, -2),
> + BPF_ALU32_REG(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2),
> + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_RSH, BPF_REG_0, 32),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + },
> + .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
> + .result = ACCEPT,
> + .retval = 0,
> +},
> +{
> + "or32 reg zero extend check",
> + .insns = {
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, -1),
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, -2),
> + BPF_ALU32_REG(BPF_OR, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2),
> + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_RSH, BPF_REG_0, 32),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + },
> + .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
> + .result = ACCEPT,
> + .retval = 0,
> +},
> +{
> + "xor32 reg zero extend check",
> + .insns = {
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, -1),
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 0),
> + BPF_ALU32_REG(BPF_XOR, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2),
> + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_RSH, BPF_REG_0, 32),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> + },
> + .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
> + .result = ACCEPT,
> + .retval = 0,
> +},
> --
> 2.20.1
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH bpf] selftests: bpf: add zero extend checks for ALU32 and/or/xor
2019-05-22 18:13 ` Y Song
@ 2019-05-22 20:46 ` Björn Töpel
2019-05-23 6:38 ` Y Song
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Björn Töpel @ 2019-05-22 20:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Y Song; +Cc: Daniel Borkmann, Alexei Starovoitov, netdev, bpf
On Wed, 22 May 2019 at 20:13, Y Song <ys114321@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 2:25 AM Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Add three tests to test_verifier/basic_instr that make sure that the
> > high 32-bits of the destination register is cleared after an ALU32
> > and/or/xor.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@gmail.com>
>
> I think the patch intends for bpf-next, right? The patch itself looks
> good to me.
> Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
>
Thank you. Actually, it was intended for the bpf tree, as a test
follow up for this [1] fix.
Cheers,
Björn
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAJ+HfNifkxKz8df7gLBuqWA6+t6awrrRK6oW6m1nAYETJD+Vfg@mail.gmail.com/
> > ---
> > .../selftests/bpf/verifier/basic_instr.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/basic_instr.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/basic_instr.c
> > index ed91a7b9a456..4d844089938e 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/basic_instr.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/basic_instr.c
> > @@ -132,3 +132,42 @@
> > .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
> > .result = ACCEPT,
> > },
> > +{
> > + "and32 reg zero extend check",
> > + .insns = {
> > + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, -1),
> > + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, -2),
> > + BPF_ALU32_REG(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2),
> > + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_RSH, BPF_REG_0, 32),
> > + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> > + },
> > + .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
> > + .result = ACCEPT,
> > + .retval = 0,
> > +},
> > +{
> > + "or32 reg zero extend check",
> > + .insns = {
> > + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, -1),
> > + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, -2),
> > + BPF_ALU32_REG(BPF_OR, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2),
> > + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_RSH, BPF_REG_0, 32),
> > + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> > + },
> > + .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
> > + .result = ACCEPT,
> > + .retval = 0,
> > +},
> > +{
> > + "xor32 reg zero extend check",
> > + .insns = {
> > + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, -1),
> > + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 0),
> > + BPF_ALU32_REG(BPF_XOR, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2),
> > + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_RSH, BPF_REG_0, 32),
> > + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> > + },
> > + .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
> > + .result = ACCEPT,
> > + .retval = 0,
> > +},
> > --
> > 2.20.1
> >
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH bpf] selftests: bpf: add zero extend checks for ALU32 and/or/xor
2019-05-22 20:46 ` Björn Töpel
@ 2019-05-23 6:38 ` Y Song
2019-05-23 7:48 ` Björn Töpel
2019-05-23 14:02 ` Daniel Borkmann
0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Y Song @ 2019-05-23 6:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Björn Töpel; +Cc: Daniel Borkmann, Alexei Starovoitov, netdev, bpf
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 1:46 PM Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 22 May 2019 at 20:13, Y Song <ys114321@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 2:25 AM Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Add three tests to test_verifier/basic_instr that make sure that the
> > > high 32-bits of the destination register is cleared after an ALU32
> > > and/or/xor.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@gmail.com>
> >
> > I think the patch intends for bpf-next, right? The patch itself looks
> > good to me.
> > Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
> >
>
> Thank you. Actually, it was intended for the bpf tree, as a test
> follow up for this [1] fix.
Then maybe you want to add a Fixes tag and resubmit?
>
>
> Cheers,
> Björn
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAJ+HfNifkxKz8df7gLBuqWA6+t6awrrRK6oW6m1nAYETJD+Vfg@mail.gmail.com/
>
> > > ---
> > > .../selftests/bpf/verifier/basic_instr.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/basic_instr.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/basic_instr.c
> > > index ed91a7b9a456..4d844089938e 100644
> > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/basic_instr.c
> > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/basic_instr.c
> > > @@ -132,3 +132,42 @@
> > > .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
> > > .result = ACCEPT,
> > > },
> > > +{
> > > + "and32 reg zero extend check",
> > > + .insns = {
> > > + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, -1),
> > > + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, -2),
> > > + BPF_ALU32_REG(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2),
> > > + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_RSH, BPF_REG_0, 32),
> > > + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> > > + },
> > > + .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
> > > + .result = ACCEPT,
> > > + .retval = 0,
> > > +},
> > > +{
> > > + "or32 reg zero extend check",
> > > + .insns = {
> > > + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, -1),
> > > + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, -2),
> > > + BPF_ALU32_REG(BPF_OR, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2),
> > > + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_RSH, BPF_REG_0, 32),
> > > + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> > > + },
> > > + .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
> > > + .result = ACCEPT,
> > > + .retval = 0,
> > > +},
> > > +{
> > > + "xor32 reg zero extend check",
> > > + .insns = {
> > > + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, -1),
> > > + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 0),
> > > + BPF_ALU32_REG(BPF_XOR, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2),
> > > + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_RSH, BPF_REG_0, 32),
> > > + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> > > + },
> > > + .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
> > > + .result = ACCEPT,
> > > + .retval = 0,
> > > +},
> > > --
> > > 2.20.1
> > >
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH bpf] selftests: bpf: add zero extend checks for ALU32 and/or/xor
2019-05-23 6:38 ` Y Song
@ 2019-05-23 7:48 ` Björn Töpel
2019-05-23 14:02 ` Daniel Borkmann
1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Björn Töpel @ 2019-05-23 7:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Y Song; +Cc: Daniel Borkmann, Alexei Starovoitov, netdev, bpf
On Thu, 23 May 2019 at 08:39, Y Song <ys114321@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 1:46 PM Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 22 May 2019 at 20:13, Y Song <ys114321@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 2:25 AM Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Add three tests to test_verifier/basic_instr that make sure that the
> > > > high 32-bits of the destination register is cleared after an ALU32
> > > > and/or/xor.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@gmail.com>
> > >
> > > I think the patch intends for bpf-next, right? The patch itself looks
> > > good to me.
> > > Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
> > >
> >
> > Thank you. Actually, it was intended for the bpf tree, as a test
> > follow up for this [1] fix.
> Then maybe you want to add a Fixes tag and resubmit?
Hmm, I thought that adding tests were OK for non-next. Should the
Fixes: tag for the test reflex the corresponding fixed code (in this
case the RV JIT)?
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Björn
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAJ+HfNifkxKz8df7gLBuqWA6+t6awrrRK6oW6m1nAYETJD+Vfg@mail.gmail.com/
> >
> > > > ---
> > > > .../selftests/bpf/verifier/basic_instr.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++
> > > > 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/basic_instr.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/basic_instr.c
> > > > index ed91a7b9a456..4d844089938e 100644
> > > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/basic_instr.c
> > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/basic_instr.c
> > > > @@ -132,3 +132,42 @@
> > > > .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
> > > > .result = ACCEPT,
> > > > },
> > > > +{
> > > > + "and32 reg zero extend check",
> > > > + .insns = {
> > > > + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, -1),
> > > > + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, -2),
> > > > + BPF_ALU32_REG(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2),
> > > > + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_RSH, BPF_REG_0, 32),
> > > > + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> > > > + },
> > > > + .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
> > > > + .result = ACCEPT,
> > > > + .retval = 0,
> > > > +},
> > > > +{
> > > > + "or32 reg zero extend check",
> > > > + .insns = {
> > > > + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, -1),
> > > > + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, -2),
> > > > + BPF_ALU32_REG(BPF_OR, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2),
> > > > + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_RSH, BPF_REG_0, 32),
> > > > + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> > > > + },
> > > > + .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
> > > > + .result = ACCEPT,
> > > > + .retval = 0,
> > > > +},
> > > > +{
> > > > + "xor32 reg zero extend check",
> > > > + .insns = {
> > > > + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, -1),
> > > > + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 0),
> > > > + BPF_ALU32_REG(BPF_XOR, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2),
> > > > + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_RSH, BPF_REG_0, 32),
> > > > + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> > > > + },
> > > > + .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
> > > > + .result = ACCEPT,
> > > > + .retval = 0,
> > > > +},
> > > > --
> > > > 2.20.1
> > > >
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH bpf] selftests: bpf: add zero extend checks for ALU32 and/or/xor
2019-05-23 6:38 ` Y Song
2019-05-23 7:48 ` Björn Töpel
@ 2019-05-23 14:02 ` Daniel Borkmann
2019-05-23 14:31 ` Jiong Wang
1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Borkmann @ 2019-05-23 14:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Y Song, Björn Töpel; +Cc: Alexei Starovoitov, netdev, bpf
On 05/23/2019 08:38 AM, Y Song wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 1:46 PM Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 May 2019 at 20:13, Y Song <ys114321@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 2:25 AM Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Add three tests to test_verifier/basic_instr that make sure that the
>>>> high 32-bits of the destination register is cleared after an ALU32
>>>> and/or/xor.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> I think the patch intends for bpf-next, right? The patch itself looks
>>> good to me.
>>> Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
>>
>> Thank you. Actually, it was intended for the bpf tree, as a test
>> follow up for this [1] fix.
> Then maybe you want to add a Fixes tag and resubmit?
Why would the test case need a fixes tag? It's common practice that we have
BPF fixes that we queue to bpf tree along with kselftest test cases related
to them. Therefore, applied as well, thanks for following up!
Björn, in my email from the fix, I mentioned we should have test snippets
ideally for all of the alu32 insns to not miss something falling through the
cracks when JITs get added or changed. If you have some cycles to add the
remaining missing ones, that would be much appreciated.
Thanks,
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH bpf] selftests: bpf: add zero extend checks for ALU32 and/or/xor
2019-05-23 14:02 ` Daniel Borkmann
@ 2019-05-23 14:31 ` Jiong Wang
2019-05-23 16:05 ` Björn Töpel
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Jiong Wang @ 2019-05-23 14:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Borkmann
Cc: Y Song, Björn Töpel, Alexei Starovoitov, netdev, bpf
> On 23 May 2019, at 15:02, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> wrote:
>
> On 05/23/2019 08:38 AM, Y Song wrote:
>> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 1:46 PM Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 May 2019 at 20:13, Y Song <ys114321@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 2:25 AM Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Add three tests to test_verifier/basic_instr that make sure that the
>>>>> high 32-bits of the destination register is cleared after an ALU32
>>>>> and/or/xor.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> I think the patch intends for bpf-next, right? The patch itself looks
>>>> good to me.
>>>> Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
>>>
>>> Thank you. Actually, it was intended for the bpf tree, as a test
>>> follow up for this [1] fix.
>> Then maybe you want to add a Fixes tag and resubmit?
>
> Why would the test case need a fixes tag? It's common practice that we have
> BPF fixes that we queue to bpf tree along with kselftest test cases related
> to them. Therefore, applied as well, thanks for following up!
>
> Björn, in my email from the fix, I mentioned we should have test snippets
> ideally for all of the alu32 insns to not miss something falling through the
> cracks when JITs get added or changed. If you have some cycles to add the
> remaining missing ones, that would be much appreciated.
Björn,
If you don’t have time, I can take this alu32 test case follow up as well.
Regards,
Jiong
>
> Thanks,
> Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH bpf] selftests: bpf: add zero extend checks for ALU32 and/or/xor
2019-05-23 14:31 ` Jiong Wang
@ 2019-05-23 16:05 ` Björn Töpel
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Björn Töpel @ 2019-05-23 16:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jiong Wang; +Cc: Daniel Borkmann, Y Song, Alexei Starovoitov, netdev, bpf
On Thu, 23 May 2019 at 16:31, Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@netronome.com> wrote:
>
>
> > On 23 May 2019, at 15:02, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> wrote:
> >
> > On 05/23/2019 08:38 AM, Y Song wrote:
> >> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 1:46 PM Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 22 May 2019 at 20:13, Y Song <ys114321@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 2:25 AM Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Add three tests to test_verifier/basic_instr that make sure that the
> >>>>> high 32-bits of the destination register is cleared after an ALU32
> >>>>> and/or/xor.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@gmail.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> I think the patch intends for bpf-next, right? The patch itself looks
> >>>> good to me.
> >>>> Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
> >>>
> >>> Thank you. Actually, it was intended for the bpf tree, as a test
> >>> follow up for this [1] fix.
> >> Then maybe you want to add a Fixes tag and resubmit?
> >
> > Why would the test case need a fixes tag? It's common practice that we have
> > BPF fixes that we queue to bpf tree along with kselftest test cases related
> > to them. Therefore, applied as well, thanks for following up!
> >
> > Björn, in my email from the fix, I mentioned we should have test snippets
> > ideally for all of the alu32 insns to not miss something falling through the
> > cracks when JITs get added or changed. If you have some cycles to add the
> > remaining missing ones, that would be much appreciated.
>
> Björn,
>
> If you don’t have time, I can take this alu32 test case follow up as well.
>
Jiong, that would be great. Thank you. I'd guess it would take much
longer for me to do it (gmail.com time vs intel.com time ;-)).
Björn
> Regards,
> Jiong
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Daniel
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-05-23 16:05 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-05-22 9:23 [PATCH bpf] selftests: bpf: add zero extend checks for ALU32 and/or/xor Björn Töpel
2019-05-22 18:13 ` Y Song
2019-05-22 20:46 ` Björn Töpel
2019-05-23 6:38 ` Y Song
2019-05-23 7:48 ` Björn Töpel
2019-05-23 14:02 ` Daniel Borkmann
2019-05-23 14:31 ` Jiong Wang
2019-05-23 16:05 ` Björn Töpel
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).