Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

ci: Treat warning as error #6

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Apr 28, 2024

Conversation

guoren83
Copy link
Collaborator

Stop warning into the repo.

Disable HZ_12 compiling because of warning.

Stop warning into the repo.

Signed-off-by: Guo Ren <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Guo Ren <[email protected]>
@guoren83 guoren83 force-pushed the linux-6.6-ci-treat-warning-error branch from 401634b to cb32f06 Compare April 28, 2024 06:29
warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size
[-Wpointer-to-int-cast]
  151 |         u64 ip = (u64)(ctx->ro_insns + ctx->ninsns);
      |                  ^

Signed-off-by: Guo Ren <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Guo Ren <[email protected]>
@guoren83 guoren83 merged commit 4b4e27f into ruyisdk:linux-6.6 Apr 28, 2024
5 checks passed
RevySR pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 29, 2024
…d by BPF_JIT

test_bpf: #6 LD_IND
bpf-jit: target offset 0x10872ffce is out of range
jited:0 2164 1381 1477 PASS
test_bpf: Summary: 1 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [0/1 JIT'ed]

Signed-off-by: Chen Pei <[email protected]>
RevySR pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 29, 2024
…s in tail_call

This patch solves the 10 tail_call testing issues in test_bpf.
At this point, all tests of test_bpf in BPF_JIT mode have passed.
Here is the comparison between s64ilp32, s64lp64 and s32ilp32:

- s64lp64

```
...
test_bpf: Summary: 1026 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [1014/1014 JIT'ed]
test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 188 PASS
test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 180 PASS
test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 203 PASS
test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 225 PASS
test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 145 PASS
test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 195 PASS
test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 997 PASS
test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 155563 PASS
test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 164 PASS
test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 136 PASS
test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed]
...
test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED
```

- s64ilp32

```
...
test_bpf: Summary: 1026 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [1014/1014 JIT'ed]
test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 160 PASS
test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 221 PASS
test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 251 PASS
test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 275 PASS
test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 198 PASS
test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 262 PASS
test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 1390 PASS
test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 204492 PASS
test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 199 PASS
test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 168 PASS
test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed]
...
test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED
```

- s32ilp32

```
...
test_bpf: Summary: 1027 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [832/1015 JIT'ed]
test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 266 PASS
test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 409 PASS
test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 481 PASS
test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 537 PASS
test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 325 PASS
test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 427 PASS
test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 3050 PASS
test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 255522 PASS
test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 315 PASS
test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 280 PASS
test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed]
...
test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED
```

Actually, s64ilp32 and s64lp64 perform consistently, both in terms of the number
that can be executed by JIT and execution time. while, only 80% of cases in s32ilp32
can be executed by JIT, and the execution time is also longer under the same JIT
execution situation.

Signed-off-by: Chen Pei <[email protected]>
RevySR pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 29, 2024
commit d3b17c6 upstream.

Using completion_done to determine whether the caller has gone
away only works after a complete call.  Furthermore it's still
possible that the caller has not yet called wait_for_completion,
resulting in another potential UAF.

Fix this by making the caller use cancel_work_sync and then freeing
the memory safely.

Fixes: 7d42e09 ("crypto: qat - resolve race condition during AER recovery")
Cc: <[email protected]> #6.8+
Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Giovanni Cabiddu <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
RevySR pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 29, 2024
commit 9d274c1 upstream.

We have been seeing crashes on duplicate keys in
btrfs_set_item_key_safe():

  BTRFS critical (device vdb): slot 4 key (450 108 8192) new key (450 108 8192)
  ------------[ cut here ]------------
  kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/ctree.c:2620!
  invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP PTI
  CPU: 0 PID: 3139 Comm: xfs_io Kdump: loaded Not tainted 6.9.0 #6
  Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.16.3-2.fc40 04/01/2014
  RIP: 0010:btrfs_set_item_key_safe+0x11f/0x290 [btrfs]

With the following stack trace:

  #0  btrfs_set_item_key_safe (fs/btrfs/ctree.c:2620:4)
  #1  btrfs_drop_extents (fs/btrfs/file.c:411:4)
  #2  log_one_extent (fs/btrfs/tree-log.c:4732:9)
  #3  btrfs_log_changed_extents (fs/btrfs/tree-log.c:4955:9)
  #4  btrfs_log_inode (fs/btrfs/tree-log.c:6626:9)
  #5  btrfs_log_inode_parent (fs/btrfs/tree-log.c:7070:8)
  #6  btrfs_log_dentry_safe (fs/btrfs/tree-log.c:7171:8)
  #7  btrfs_sync_file (fs/btrfs/file.c:1933:8)
  #8  vfs_fsync_range (fs/sync.c:188:9)
  #9  vfs_fsync (fs/sync.c:202:9)
  #10 do_fsync (fs/sync.c:212:9)
  #11 __do_sys_fdatasync (fs/sync.c:225:9)
  #12 __se_sys_fdatasync (fs/sync.c:223:1)
  #13 __x64_sys_fdatasync (fs/sync.c:223:1)
  #14 do_syscall_x64 (arch/x86/entry/common.c:52:14)
  #15 do_syscall_64 (arch/x86/entry/common.c:83:7)
  #16 entry_SYSCALL_64+0xaf/0x14c (arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:121)

So we're logging a changed extent from fsync, which is splitting an
extent in the log tree. But this split part already exists in the tree,
triggering the BUG().

This is the state of the log tree at the time of the crash, dumped with
drgn (https://github.com/osandov/drgn/blob/main/contrib/btrfs_tree.py)
to get more details than btrfs_print_leaf() gives us:

  >>> print_extent_buffer(prog.crashed_thread().stack_trace()[0]["eb"])
  leaf 33439744 level 0 items 72 generation 9 owner 18446744073709551610
  leaf 33439744 flags 0x100000000000000
  fs uuid e5bd3946-400c-4223-8923-190ef1f18677
  chunk uuid d58cb17e-6d02-494a-829a-18b7d8a399da
          item 0 key (450 INODE_ITEM 0) itemoff 16123 itemsize 160
                  generation 7 transid 9 size 8192 nbytes 8473563889606862198
                  block group 0 mode 100600 links 1 uid 0 gid 0 rdev 0
                  sequence 204 flags 0x10(PREALLOC)
                  atime 1716417703.220000000 (2024-05-22 15:41:43)
                  ctime 1716417704.983333333 (2024-05-22 15:41:44)
                  mtime 1716417704.983333333 (2024-05-22 15:41:44)
                  otime 17592186044416.000000000 (559444-03-08 01:40:16)
          item 1 key (450 INODE_REF 256) itemoff 16110 itemsize 13
                  index 195 namelen 3 name: 193
          item 2 key (450 XATTR_ITEM 1640047104) itemoff 16073 itemsize 37
                  location key (0 UNKNOWN.0 0) type XATTR
                  transid 7 data_len 1 name_len 6
                  name: user.a
                  data a
          item 3 key (450 EXTENT_DATA 0) itemoff 16020 itemsize 53
                  generation 9 type 1 (regular)
                  extent data disk byte 303144960 nr 12288
                  extent data offset 0 nr 4096 ram 12288
                  extent compression 0 (none)
          item 4 key (450 EXTENT_DATA 4096) itemoff 15967 itemsize 53
                  generation 9 type 2 (prealloc)
                  prealloc data disk byte 303144960 nr 12288
                  prealloc data offset 4096 nr 8192
          item 5 key (450 EXTENT_DATA 8192) itemoff 15914 itemsize 53
                  generation 9 type 2 (prealloc)
                  prealloc data disk byte 303144960 nr 12288
                  prealloc data offset 8192 nr 4096
  ...

So the real problem happened earlier: notice that items 4 (4k-12k) and 5
(8k-12k) overlap. Both are prealloc extents. Item 4 straddles i_size and
item 5 starts at i_size.

Here is the state of the filesystem tree at the time of the crash:

  >>> root = prog.crashed_thread().stack_trace()[2]["inode"].root
  >>> ret, nodes, slots = btrfs_search_slot(root, BtrfsKey(450, 0, 0))
  >>> print_extent_buffer(nodes[0])
  leaf 30425088 level 0 items 184 generation 9 owner 5
  leaf 30425088 flags 0x100000000000000
  fs uuid e5bd3946-400c-4223-8923-190ef1f18677
  chunk uuid d58cb17e-6d02-494a-829a-18b7d8a399da
  	...
          item 179 key (450 INODE_ITEM 0) itemoff 4907 itemsize 160
                  generation 7 transid 7 size 4096 nbytes 12288
                  block group 0 mode 100600 links 1 uid 0 gid 0 rdev 0
                  sequence 6 flags 0x10(PREALLOC)
                  atime 1716417703.220000000 (2024-05-22 15:41:43)
                  ctime 1716417703.220000000 (2024-05-22 15:41:43)
                  mtime 1716417703.220000000 (2024-05-22 15:41:43)
                  otime 1716417703.220000000 (2024-05-22 15:41:43)
          item 180 key (450 INODE_REF 256) itemoff 4894 itemsize 13
                  index 195 namelen 3 name: 193
          item 181 key (450 XATTR_ITEM 1640047104) itemoff 4857 itemsize 37
                  location key (0 UNKNOWN.0 0) type XATTR
                  transid 7 data_len 1 name_len 6
                  name: user.a
                  data a
          item 182 key (450 EXTENT_DATA 0) itemoff 4804 itemsize 53
                  generation 9 type 1 (regular)
                  extent data disk byte 303144960 nr 12288
                  extent data offset 0 nr 8192 ram 12288
                  extent compression 0 (none)
          item 183 key (450 EXTENT_DATA 8192) itemoff 4751 itemsize 53
                  generation 9 type 2 (prealloc)
                  prealloc data disk byte 303144960 nr 12288
                  prealloc data offset 8192 nr 4096

Item 5 in the log tree corresponds to item 183 in the filesystem tree,
but nothing matches item 4. Furthermore, item 183 is the last item in
the leaf.

btrfs_log_prealloc_extents() is responsible for logging prealloc extents
beyond i_size. It first truncates any previously logged prealloc extents
that start beyond i_size. Then, it walks the filesystem tree and copies
the prealloc extent items to the log tree.

If it hits the end of a leaf, then it calls btrfs_next_leaf(), which
unlocks the tree and does another search. However, while the filesystem
tree is unlocked, an ordered extent completion may modify the tree. In
particular, it may insert an extent item that overlaps with an extent
item that was already copied to the log tree.

This may manifest in several ways depending on the exact scenario,
including an EEXIST error that is silently translated to a full sync,
overlapping items in the log tree, or this crash. This particular crash
is triggered by the following sequence of events:

- Initially, the file has i_size=4k, a regular extent from 0-4k, and a
  prealloc extent beyond i_size from 4k-12k. The prealloc extent item is
  the last item in its B-tree leaf.
- The file is fsync'd, which copies its inode item and both extent items
  to the log tree.
- An xattr is set on the file, which sets the
  BTRFS_INODE_COPY_EVERYTHING flag.
- The range 4k-8k in the file is written using direct I/O. i_size is
  extended to 8k, but the ordered extent is still in flight.
- The file is fsync'd. Since BTRFS_INODE_COPY_EVERYTHING is set, this
  calls copy_inode_items_to_log(), which calls
  btrfs_log_prealloc_extents().
- btrfs_log_prealloc_extents() finds the 4k-12k prealloc extent in the
  filesystem tree. Since it starts before i_size, it skips it. Since it
  is the last item in its B-tree leaf, it calls btrfs_next_leaf().
- btrfs_next_leaf() unlocks the path.
- The ordered extent completion runs, which converts the 4k-8k part of
  the prealloc extent to written and inserts the remaining prealloc part
  from 8k-12k.
- btrfs_next_leaf() does a search and finds the new prealloc extent
  8k-12k.
- btrfs_log_prealloc_extents() copies the 8k-12k prealloc extent into
  the log tree. Note that it overlaps with the 4k-12k prealloc extent
  that was copied to the log tree by the first fsync.
- fsync calls btrfs_log_changed_extents(), which tries to log the 4k-8k
  extent that was written.
- This tries to drop the range 4k-8k in the log tree, which requires
  adjusting the start of the 4k-12k prealloc extent in the log tree to
  8k.
- btrfs_set_item_key_safe() sees that there is already an extent
  starting at 8k in the log tree and calls BUG().

Fix this by detecting when we're about to insert an overlapping file
extent item in the log tree and truncating the part that would overlap.

CC: [email protected] # 6.1+
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Omar Sandoval <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
RevySR pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 29, 2024
…d by BPF_JIT

test_bpf: #6 LD_IND
bpf-jit: target offset 0x10872ffce is out of range
jited:0 2164 1381 1477 PASS
test_bpf: Summary: 1 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [0/1 JIT'ed]

Signed-off-by: Chen Pei <[email protected]>
RevySR pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 29, 2024
…s in tail_call

This patch solves the 10 tail_call testing issues in test_bpf.
At this point, all tests of test_bpf in BPF_JIT mode have passed.
Here is the comparison between s64ilp32, s64lp64 and s32ilp32:

- s64lp64

```
...
test_bpf: Summary: 1026 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [1014/1014 JIT'ed]
test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 188 PASS
test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 180 PASS
test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 203 PASS
test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 225 PASS
test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 145 PASS
test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 195 PASS
test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 997 PASS
test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 155563 PASS
test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 164 PASS
test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 136 PASS
test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed]
...
test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED
```

- s64ilp32

```
...
test_bpf: Summary: 1026 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [1014/1014 JIT'ed]
test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 160 PASS
test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 221 PASS
test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 251 PASS
test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 275 PASS
test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 198 PASS
test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 262 PASS
test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 1390 PASS
test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 204492 PASS
test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 199 PASS
test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 168 PASS
test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed]
...
test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED
```

- s32ilp32

```
...
test_bpf: Summary: 1027 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [832/1015 JIT'ed]
test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 266 PASS
test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 409 PASS
test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 481 PASS
test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 537 PASS
test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 325 PASS
test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 427 PASS
test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 3050 PASS
test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 255522 PASS
test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 315 PASS
test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 280 PASS
test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed]
...
test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED
```

Actually, s64ilp32 and s64lp64 perform consistently, both in terms of the number
that can be executed by JIT and execution time. while, only 80% of cases in s32ilp32
can be executed by JIT, and the execution time is also longer under the same JIT
execution situation.

Signed-off-by: Chen Pei <[email protected]>
RevySR pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 29, 2024
…d by BPF_JIT

test_bpf: #6 LD_IND
bpf-jit: target offset 0x10872ffce is out of range
jited:0 2164 1381 1477 PASS
test_bpf: Summary: 1 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [0/1 JIT'ed]

Signed-off-by: Chen Pei <[email protected]>
RevySR pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 29, 2024
…s in tail_call

This patch solves the 10 tail_call testing issues in test_bpf.
At this point, all tests of test_bpf in BPF_JIT mode have passed.
Here is the comparison between s64ilp32, s64lp64 and s32ilp32:

- s64lp64

```
...
test_bpf: Summary: 1026 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [1014/1014 JIT'ed]
test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 188 PASS
test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 180 PASS
test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 203 PASS
test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 225 PASS
test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 145 PASS
test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 195 PASS
test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 997 PASS
test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 155563 PASS
test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 164 PASS
test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 136 PASS
test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed]
...
test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED
```

- s64ilp32

```
...
test_bpf: Summary: 1026 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [1014/1014 JIT'ed]
test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 160 PASS
test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 221 PASS
test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 251 PASS
test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 275 PASS
test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 198 PASS
test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 262 PASS
test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 1390 PASS
test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 204492 PASS
test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 199 PASS
test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 168 PASS
test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed]
...
test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED
```

- s32ilp32

```
...
test_bpf: Summary: 1027 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [832/1015 JIT'ed]
test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 266 PASS
test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 409 PASS
test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 481 PASS
test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 537 PASS
test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 325 PASS
test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 427 PASS
test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 3050 PASS
test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 255522 PASS
test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 315 PASS
test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 280 PASS
test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed]
...
test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED
```

Actually, s64ilp32 and s64lp64 perform consistently, both in terms of the number
that can be executed by JIT and execution time. while, only 80% of cases in s32ilp32
can be executed by JIT, and the execution time is also longer under the same JIT
execution situation.

Signed-off-by: Chen Pei <[email protected]>
RevySR pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 29, 2024
…d by BPF_JIT

test_bpf: #6 LD_IND
bpf-jit: target offset 0x10872ffce is out of range
jited:0 2164 1381 1477 PASS
test_bpf: Summary: 1 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [0/1 JIT'ed]

Signed-off-by: Chen Pei <[email protected]>
RevySR pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 29, 2024
…s in tail_call

This patch solves the 10 tail_call testing issues in test_bpf.
At this point, all tests of test_bpf in BPF_JIT mode have passed.
Here is the comparison between s64ilp32, s64lp64 and s32ilp32:

- s64lp64

```
...
test_bpf: Summary: 1026 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [1014/1014 JIT'ed]
test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 188 PASS
test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 180 PASS
test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 203 PASS
test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 225 PASS
test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 145 PASS
test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 195 PASS
test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 997 PASS
test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 155563 PASS
test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 164 PASS
test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 136 PASS
test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed]
...
test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED
```

- s64ilp32

```
...
test_bpf: Summary: 1026 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [1014/1014 JIT'ed]
test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 160 PASS
test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 221 PASS
test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 251 PASS
test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 275 PASS
test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 198 PASS
test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 262 PASS
test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 1390 PASS
test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 204492 PASS
test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 199 PASS
test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 168 PASS
test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed]
...
test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED
```

- s32ilp32

```
...
test_bpf: Summary: 1027 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [832/1015 JIT'ed]
test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 266 PASS
test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 409 PASS
test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 481 PASS
test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 537 PASS
test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 325 PASS
test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 427 PASS
test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 3050 PASS
test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 255522 PASS
test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 315 PASS
test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 280 PASS
test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed]
...
test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED
```

Actually, s64ilp32 and s64lp64 perform consistently, both in terms of the number
that can be executed by JIT and execution time. while, only 80% of cases in s32ilp32
can be executed by JIT, and the execution time is also longer under the same JIT
execution situation.

Signed-off-by: Chen Pei <[email protected]>
RevySR pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 30, 2024
…d by BPF_JIT

test_bpf: #6 LD_IND
bpf-jit: target offset 0x10872ffce is out of range
jited:0 2164 1381 1477 PASS
test_bpf: Summary: 1 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [0/1 JIT'ed]

Signed-off-by: Chen Pei <[email protected]>
RevySR pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 30, 2024
…s in tail_call

This patch solves the 10 tail_call testing issues in test_bpf.
At this point, all tests of test_bpf in BPF_JIT mode have passed.
Here is the comparison between s64ilp32, s64lp64 and s32ilp32:

- s64lp64

```
...
test_bpf: Summary: 1026 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [1014/1014 JIT'ed]
test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 188 PASS
test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 180 PASS
test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 203 PASS
test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 225 PASS
test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 145 PASS
test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 195 PASS
test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 997 PASS
test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 155563 PASS
test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 164 PASS
test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 136 PASS
test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed]
...
test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED
```

- s64ilp32

```
...
test_bpf: Summary: 1026 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [1014/1014 JIT'ed]
test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 160 PASS
test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 221 PASS
test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 251 PASS
test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 275 PASS
test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 198 PASS
test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 262 PASS
test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 1390 PASS
test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 204492 PASS
test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 199 PASS
test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 168 PASS
test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed]
...
test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED
```

- s32ilp32

```
...
test_bpf: Summary: 1027 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [832/1015 JIT'ed]
test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 266 PASS
test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 409 PASS
test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 481 PASS
test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 537 PASS
test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 325 PASS
test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 427 PASS
test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 3050 PASS
test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 255522 PASS
test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 315 PASS
test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 280 PASS
test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed]
...
test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED
```

Actually, s64ilp32 and s64lp64 perform consistently, both in terms of the number
that can be executed by JIT and execution time. while, only 80% of cases in s32ilp32
can be executed by JIT, and the execution time is also longer under the same JIT
execution situation.

Signed-off-by: Chen Pei <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant