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=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham 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 F29E0C04AAF for ; Thu, 16 May 2019 16:21:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C66EF20818 for ; Thu, 16 May 2019 16:21:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=kinvolk.io header.i=@kinvolk.io header.b="ArCqLQ+m" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726440AbfEPQVq (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 May 2019 12:21:46 -0400 Received: from mail-lj1-f195.google.com ([209.85.208.195]:38618 "EHLO mail-lj1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726339AbfEPQVq (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 May 2019 12:21:46 -0400 Received: by mail-lj1-f195.google.com with SMTP id 14so3664875ljj.5 for ; Thu, 16 May 2019 09:21:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kinvolk.io; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2e5Do/kWandKX1Zbza7sapR2anoZAP3eXmyFdlVoIKA=; b=ArCqLQ+mQc4Jf+7VG1OdMWx31L6sOXF2Y4z/qL7fxHo0l/XOMLxlZhFvmSO9hV7WSy 6RJy27G0BLy0i2xPqrJIdetwNB9Q4Spb89sBui0GkTfheyp1uV6bp0C+WzQPpw197YmW Dt+Sg/qBSz6e625LoIace3EjYmevysKHUexhc= 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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2e5Do/kWandKX1Zbza7sapR2anoZAP3eXmyFdlVoIKA=; b=IsdQ3VRz27eMJL302mXoTExZ1FU0+M5XQWX2JJw0CNJVqimjYXfBAUOvjYLIqBHFbu bt5pE635tokv4j2xeZwk4h6R3u1zc7xFLLm/UFQQd1li7s8CNKe6FEItGB3ZKNjw3YLV zTSdUmGHdVO/AIhAEJhqSHbshe4MsGxa0r4yDFZzSILMck4p+0ZkdmIB9Fpszdr0olVf sUjThcW1iCOljILg/8Ox+fMz3OKYEDNu0Q1nKIUoMVCqpCMPKgbG5HpwyHGlB6pZqRLt MBosoquz6lvAMKdp5rAf3H0YcWMTEeSYHZb3V1uTbzQSqz9KBE+qFtfeIAPO2KCeO8y1 09Fg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXYPieEMdaDO9VR5rUFjJpQUQeYggL+eZvsEXc6Y7pa776BS3ue V972yU2A1pdF5Pv0oOgAKT3TbFUqIr8Sw0VssOHB+w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyqHiyH4AeBft1evepIQq8xBjLJiWFn//O/FH36CylnD2Em3MeZL1D22OC+4X2lB0bbci0VypEz679vdXG/w5Q= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:88ce:: with SMTP id a14mr18017256ljk.122.1558023704266; Thu, 16 May 2019 09:21:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190515134731.12611-1-krzesimir@kinvolk.io> <20190515134731.12611-3-krzesimir@kinvolk.io> <20190515144537.57f559e7@cakuba.netronome.com> <20190516085035.3cdb0ae6@cakuba.netronome.com> In-Reply-To: <20190516085035.3cdb0ae6@cakuba.netronome.com> From: Krzesimir Nowak Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 18:21:32 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf v1 2/3] selftests/bpf: Print a message when tester could not run a program To: Jakub Kicinski Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, =?UTF-8?Q?Iago_L=C3=B3pez_Galeiras?= , "Alban Crequy (Kinvolk)" , Shuah Khan , Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , Martin KaFai Lau , Song Liu , Yonghong Song , Andrey Ignatov , linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: bpf-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 5:51 PM Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Thu, 16 May 2019 11:29:39 +0200, Krzesimir Nowak wrote: > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/te= sting/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c > > > > index ccd896b98cac..bf0da03f593b 100644 > > > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c > > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c > > > > @@ -825,11 +825,20 @@ static int do_prog_test_run(int fd_prog, bool= unpriv, uint32_t expected_val, > > > > tmp, &size_tmp, &retval, NULL); > > > > if (unpriv) > > > > set_admin(false); > > > > - if (err && errno !=3D 524/*ENOTSUPP*/ && errno !=3D EPERM) { > > > > - printf("Unexpected bpf_prog_test_run error "); > > > > - return err; > > > > + if (err) { > > > > + switch (errno) { > > > > + case 524/*ENOTSUPP*/: > > > > + printf("Did not run the program (not supporte= d) "); > > > > + return 0; > > > > + case EPERM: > > > > + printf("Did not run the program (no permissio= n) "); > > > > + return 0; > > > > > > Perhaps use strerror(errno)? > > > > As I said in the commit message, I open-coded those messages because > > strerror for ENOTSUPP returns "Unknown error 524". > > Ah, sorry, missed that. I wonder if that's something worth addressing > in libc, since the BPF subsystem uses ENOTSUPP a lot. The "not supported" errno situation seems to be a mess. There is an ENOTSUP define in libc. ENOTSUP is usually defined to be EOPNOTSUPP (taken from kernel), which in turn seems to have a different value (95) than kernel's ENOTSUPP (524). Adding ENOTSUPP (with two Ps) to libc would only add to the confusion. So it's kind of meh and I guess people just moved on with workarounds. --=20 Kinvolk GmbH | Adalbertstr.6a, 10999 Berlin | tel: +491755589364 Gesch=C3=A4ftsf=C3=BChrer/Directors: Alban Crequy, Chris K=C3=BChl, Iago L= =C3=B3pez Galeiras Registergericht/Court of registration: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg Registernummer/Registration number: HRB 171414 B Ust-ID-Nummer/VAT ID number: DE302207000