IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
Update [1] to LLVM BPF backend seeks to enable generation of BPF_ST
instruction when CPUv4 is selected. This affects expected log messages
for the following selftests:
- log_fixup/missing_map
- spin_lock/lock_id_mapval_preserve
- spin_lock/lock_id_innermapval_preserve
Expected messages in these tests hard-code instruction numbers for BPF
programs compiled from C. These instruction numbers change when
BPF_ST is allowed because single BPF_ST instruction replaces a pair of
BPF_MOV/BPF_STX instructions, e.g.:
r1 = 42;
*(u32 *)(r10 - 8) = r1; ---> *(u32 *)(r10 - 8) = 42;
This commit updates expected log messages to avoid matching specific
instruction numbers (program position still could be uniquely
identified).
[1] https://reviews.llvm.org/D140804
"[BPF] support for BPF_ST instruction in codegen"
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230808162755.392606-1-eddyz87@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>
First, ensure that whenever a bpf_spin_lock is present in an allocation,
the reg->id is preserved. This won't be true for global variables
however, since they have a single map value per map, hence the verifier
harcodes it to 0 (so that multiple pseudo ldimm64 insns can yield the
same lock object per map at a given offset).
Next, add test cases for all possible combinations (kptr, global, map
value, inner map value). Since we lifted restriction on locking in inner
maps, also add test cases for them. Currently, each lookup into an inner
map gets a fresh reg->id, so even if the reg->map_ptr is same, they will
be treated as separate allocations and the incorrect unlock pairing will
be rejected.
Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221118015614.2013203-22-memxor@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>