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=-6.2 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 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 08746C11F67 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 21:09:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF7AB61D92 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 21:09:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234862AbhF2VL0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jun 2021 17:11:26 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]:56234 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232602AbhF2VLZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jun 2021 17:11:25 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1625000937; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=FrqFQPQ1Ye3XKJAdpfCoReQR+zXi3R08N7WEX3DldRo=; b=D5xpA0Ow4GsgWaVNQ7C8vR8Syz+1z5F8llj3vPAdGEm1FGB21LHE1EyLuSicaMTjdHI4mD JE45fNL7upZBmKw0/eUaRvTV8Ai4R6ynyMIHQmF0K7c/TY1YAmnG4zZNfRsdcDXJHL9T/0 oQLT3Qda/th84DS0N16iXx9dUJX3ycQ= Received: from mail-ej1-f72.google.com (mail-ej1-f72.google.com [209.85.218.72]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-216-cnxjR2tRO7yWIMiZKnxHSQ-1; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 17:08:56 -0400 X-MC-Unique: cnxjR2tRO7yWIMiZKnxHSQ-1 Received: by mail-ej1-f72.google.com with SMTP id c13-20020a17090603cdb029049617c6be8eso37746eja.19 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 14:08:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=FrqFQPQ1Ye3XKJAdpfCoReQR+zXi3R08N7WEX3DldRo=; b=JLnQcODwVA4n8SB9U7TUPyRsemiviQONi/QTCrhPoJTKf7K42mr1noRzlc/675M+cY K+dUutXk+U7ku/JKVtpVE+B6CrpEgbgtNWDO2m6loYOY5oZqjFZl/j/tkz5ruyIsHKTf yCrHRmr/WsE2BAloFPRbCOWp7uZMay6C4/tlECVG4qcjvG2rNfyX+TdaRhkmjqP+FpkC LmQZUlY7N5FwsipcVEgL9nvQ0AM6i2hdI3+0YPqkbvv1cyf10/kDeXxW5QDuovTplVct 2WaPSgUeqPRs6amvI/BrDgaJPEoZCVJl+lpQLxAVpRCpG7P3aFxdanhKZPUuZoM8oMat 2cOw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530+YdUdNp8Qeyw0qgLnFKlSe3R/D2LaZEuDfw5jajBkoWodFn0W 6FHo22Jcx4GUYeRhGeQmGidRh4dxN105gdxdedQd5BupGGDymIP5hn+DFnp1yurXhFlgeHpuQQW OiGJAyAhGC6jR X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:2d0e:: with SMTP id gs14mr4894476ejc.49.1625000935147; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 14:08:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxgVqYGw0cntoN8bP11pixrtT7RyyQFMeavTfTRNndw6djx/6QtE2/5gO1KJxucWadFgbCt4Q== X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:2d0e:: with SMTP id gs14mr4894468ejc.49.1625000935004; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 14:08:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from krava ([185.153.78.55]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id hz14sm8669156ejc.107.2021.06.29.14.08.53 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 29 Jun 2021 14:08:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 23:08:51 +0200 From: Jiri Olsa To: Brendan Jackman Cc: bpf , Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , Andrii Nakryiko , KP Singh , Florent Revest , John Fastabend , LKML , "Naveen N. Rao" , Sandipan Das Subject: Re: [BUG soft lockup] Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3] bpf: Propagate stack bounds to registers in atomics w/ BPF_FETCH Message-ID: References: <20210202135002.4024825-1-jackmanb@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 06:41:24PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote: > On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 06:25:33PM +0200, Brendan Jackman wrote: > > On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 at 18:04, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 04:10:12PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 11:21:42AM +0200, Brendan Jackman wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 27 Jun 2021 at 17:34, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 01:50:02PM +0000, Brendan Jackman wrote: > > [snip] > > > > > Hmm, is the test prog from atomic_bounds.c getting JITed there (my > > > > > dumb guess at what '0xc0000000119efb30 (unreliable)' means)? That > > > > > shouldn't happen - should get 'eBPF filter atomic op code %02x (@%d) > > > > > unsupported\n' in dmesg instead. I wonder if I missed something in > > > > > commit 91c960b0056 (bpf: Rename BPF_XADD and prepare to encode other > > > > > > I see that for all the other atomics tests: > > > > > > [root@ibm-p9z-07-lp1 bpf]# ./test_verifier 21 > > > #21/p BPF_ATOMIC_AND without fetch FAIL > > > Failed to load prog 'Unknown error 524'! > > > verification time 32 usec > > > stack depth 8 > > > processed 10 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 0 total_states 1 peak_states 1 mark_read 1 > > > Summary: 0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 2 FAILED > > > > Hm that's also not good - failure to JIT shouldn't mean failure to > > load. Are there other test_verifier failures or is it just the atomics > > ones? > > I have CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON=y so I think that's fine > > > > > > console: > > > > > > [ 51.850952] eBPF filter atomic op code db (@2) unsupported > > > [ 51.851134] eBPF filter atomic op code db (@2) unsupported > > > > > > > > > [root@ibm-p9z-07-lp1 bpf]# ./test_verifier 22 > > > #22/u BPF_ATOMIC_AND with fetch FAIL > > > Failed to load prog 'Unknown error 524'! > > > verification time 38 usec > > > stack depth 8 > > > processed 14 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 0 total_states 1 peak_states 1 mark_read 1 > > > #22/p BPF_ATOMIC_AND with fetch FAIL > > > Failed to load prog 'Unknown error 524'! > > > verification time 26 usec > > > stack depth 8 > > > processed 14 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 0 total_states 1 peak_states 1 mark_read 1 > > > > > > console: > > > [ 223.231420] eBPF filter atomic op code db (@3) unsupported > > > [ 223.231596] eBPF filter atomic op code db (@3) unsupported > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > but no such console output for: > > > > > > [root@ibm-p9z-07-lp1 bpf]# ./test_verifier 24 > > > #24/u BPF_ATOMIC bounds propagation, mem->reg OK > > > > > > > > > > > atomics in .imm). Any idea if this test was ever passing on PowerPC? > > > > > > > > > > > > > hum, I guess not.. will check > > > > > > nope, it locks up the same: > > > > Do you mean it locks up at commit 91c960b0056 too? > > > > I tried this one: > 37086bfdc737 bpf: Propagate stack bounds to registers in atomics w/ BPF_FETCH > > I will check also 91c960b0056, but I think it's the new test issue for i91c960b0056 in HEAD I'm getting just 2 fails: #1097/p xadd/w check whether src/dst got mangled, 1 FAIL Failed to load prog 'Unknown error 524'! verification time 25 usec stack depth 8 processed 12 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 0 total_states 1 peak_states 1 mark_read 0 #1098/p xadd/w check whether src/dst got mangled, 2 FAIL Failed to load prog 'Unknown error 524'! verification time 30 usec stack depth 8 processed 12 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 0 total_states 1 peak_states 1 mark_read 0 with console output: [ 289.499341] eBPF filter atomic op code db (@4) unsupported [ 289.499510] eBPF filter atomic op code c3 (@4) unsupported no lock up jirka