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=-2.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, 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 B7901C433E9 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 22:44:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 880C120756 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 22:44:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732229AbhAYWnn (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jan 2021 17:43:43 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:39300 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1732781AbhAYWn3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jan 2021 17:43:29 -0500 Received: from mail-lj1-x236.google.com (mail-lj1-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::236]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12394C06174A for ; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 14:42:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lj1-x236.google.com with SMTP id f11so17319949ljm.8 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 14:42:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=N/ZLCFpqvvSBK9CS6fYLer3j0rF5eV//tUXfQU1el68=; b=DhT0cPn81bc9ZNXJhjFuhiNkLfOifgAQLJya4ostZuqvLbLPifjxR8oPGgDCHbxS9t FdJrpomkI/NkZGXiTVeAJ+VsY7znYgxPuTmwJRqhK7Wewc2+eSf64xsmnPfPhz0yk+Lu eINws5gJ0ezzzUlECYY+fKaUWrsHxR/Bb20kfGJIwBDwSep7AvlOrbZgq2KocIjOUcj6 vNbUIYK1bNC2RuA2N9ZzrGq9vcegf/4+i7MmFvCFAq+YUSdX8vLByJM797HPg3S4WSYp UD4QexUCtSkkt2SGUCfdpqaJ12I2PiU0rsPFsH8OOfHANfYt980cNg87uNqi76TR7PWl /lyQ== 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=N/ZLCFpqvvSBK9CS6fYLer3j0rF5eV//tUXfQU1el68=; b=fqKCzHieuwFLXOeHo20dCqqHFyUJTCMiRf1FesH65u5Z9OVMdwqMmfAxehATVtvth/ oWERypVNAgICMZEd+82u5gpzSDr9oOttYAwxF/gErxUU8gGm3PphkFQO+zlZH299EGkY pDuQiTRiwqL/XZvJm99Lw3lxrZcREuzaJhq/a3SUhht4ZiC3LjbEWNex4DugnEMKxzgX h9aq4PMILgSnKz7TxFEsJ9qtc88DRA/Db9irgYZxo+JGPTYBhjFuGt+HALLetmkuySak dCIJz8DzrfExz1NMehLv9mr1+689p4DIfN3NkbZsi4B93w+Ka5R4HL4VgE2u3qRVRF5T 34sQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5302tXPuoifEo/k2LpENdptQF+dNt9wAMv2rAV1lzmLu58eBahHt 46fkS4f0aEs+Ff/sFfV2Z1gJnTieyp/1oCMDxfr+VH87 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzuNg/c+Ug/qy4rrGdmEiaCTzih/g2gamXGWYzC6quaEROD26nMqs0kXB9niz3FRqyCaibMDjdlRLZUYMsb1qI= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:5ca:: with SMTP id 193mr1291771ljf.236.1611614562524; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 14:42:42 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Alexei Starovoitov Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 14:42:31 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: selftest/bpf/test_verifier_log fails on v5.11-rc5 To: Paul Moore Cc: bpf Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 12:54 PM Paul Moore wrote: > > Hello all, > > My apologies if this has already been reported, but I didn't see > anything obvious with a quick search through the archives. I have a > test program that behaves very similar to the existing > selftest/bpf/test_verifier_log test that has started failing this week > with v5.11-rc5; it ran without problem last week on v5.11-rc4. Is > this a known problem with a fix already, or is this something new? > > % uname -r > 5.11.0-0.rc5.134.fc34.x86_64 > % pwd > /.../linux/tools/testing/selftests/bpf > % git log --oneline | head -n 1 > 6ee1d745b7c9 Linux 5.11-rc5 > % make test_verifier_log > ... > BINARY test_verifier_log > % ./test_verifier_log > Test log_level 0... > Test log_size < 128... > Test log_buff = NULL... > Test oversized buffer... > ERROR: Program load returned: ret:-1/errno:22, expected ret:-1/errno:13 Thanks for reporting. bpf and bpf-next don't have this issue. Not sure what changed.