mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vineet Gupta <vineet.gupta@linux.dev>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org,
	eddyz87@gmail.com, memxor@gmail.com, martin.lau@linux.dev,
	song@kernel.org, yonghong.song@linux.dev, jolsa@kernel.org,
	emil@etsalapatis.com, ihor.solodrai@linux.dev,
	john.fastabend@gmail.com, shuah@kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
	jose.marchesi@oracle.com, david.faust@oss.qualcomm.com,
	Vineet Gupta <vineet.gupta@linux.dev>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v1 0/7] selftests/bpf: cleanup bpf-gcc runs
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2026 17:04:04 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20261028000411.4010967-1-vineet.gupta@linux.dev> (raw)

This series came out of testing a still in-works __arena support for
BPF_GCC and anomalies seen in the A/B reports.

BPF_GCC selftest builds reports a number of things that are not true.
 - Tests the compiler cannot build do not appear at all, so the
   report is silent about them
 - Others are compiled down to an empty body and report OK despite
   not even been executed
 - Two programs that fail to verify take four unrelated tests down with
   them, because everything in that object is loaded together.
 - Unconditional gating on __clang__ when newer GCC support for those
   is coming online.

Only 7/7 needs the in-works arena support to be exercised at all; the
rest are measured below with a stock bpf-gcc.  Nothing in the series
changes what clang emits.

What each patch does, and what it measurably changes. Numbers are
test_progs on bpf-next with a stock bpf-gcc, before and after:

 1/7: Gate the callx tests on a CAN_USE_CALLX macro that accepts a GCC
      defining __BPF_FEATURE_CALLX, in addition to clang.
   -> 76 subtests run that were absent from the report entirely,
      75 OK and one @unpriv SKIP, no failures. The two dummy
      placeholders retire; callx_rodata_lskel SKIP -> OK.

 2/7: Move clang-only warning flags out of GCC builds.

 3/7: Add a __skip_without_arena tag, and give each
      #if __BPF_FEATURE_ADDR_SPACE_CAST guard an #else with a dummy
      carrying it, so a compiler that cannot build those tests says
      so instead of staying silent.
   -> 6 subtests newly visible, all SKIP; arena_kfunc_jit OK -> SKIP,
      every subtest it has being one of them.

 4/7: Make arena_base() opaque to GCC's -Warray-bounds, which fires
      because the macro reads a member of struct bpf_arena through the
      much smaller map definition.  A build failure today for any GCC
      with arena support, and for everyone once 5/7 drops the guards
      that were hiding those calls.  Behind #ifdef __clang__, since
      clang does not warn and the barrier is not free.
   -> no verdict change.  +35 instructions over 20 call sites in five
      progs under GCC; clang output unchanged, bit for bit.

 5/7: Put __skip_without_arena on the tests whose body dereferences an
      arena pointer -- and only those; drop the in-body guards.
   -> 6 OK -> SKIP, check_arena_arg_ret FAIL -> SKIP, and
      verifier_arena itself FAIL -> OK.  The 11 that never dereference
      stay OK, having gone from an empty body to actually running.

 6/7: Cast explicitly with bpf_addr_space_cast() in the arena subprog
      and callback faults, instead of leaving it to the compiler, as
      the sibling tests in the same file already do.
   -> 15 FAIL -> OK, every test that loads that object rather than
      just the arena ones, and 5 subtests newly visible.

 7/7: Replace a volatile register variable GCC is entitled to optimise
      away with the asm the mixed arena/scalar ALU tests actually need.
   -> not exercised by a stock bpf-gcc, which compiles both out with
      the rest of the arena block.

Totals for the series.  Nothing regresses:

  FAIL  473 -> 457        OK -> FAIL regressions:  0
  OK   7027 -> 7115
  SKIP  761 ->  775

Those numbers were taken on a revision that suppressed the warning
per-file instead of carrying 4/7; the series as posted was re-run and
gave the same result, which is what 4/7 changing no verdict predicts.

Two things worth re-iterating explicitly:

 - 1/7 needs a GCC defining __BPF_FEATURE_CALLX, in bleeding-edge
   but not released yet.

 - 7/7, need a GCC with arena support; that work is coming along
   but not yet ready for public review.

Vineet Gupta (7):
  selftests/bpf: Build callx tests with GCC that defines
    __BPF_FEATURE_CALLX
  selftests/bpf: don't pass clang-only warning flags to GCC
  selftests/bpf: report SKIP for arena tests a compiler cannot build
  selftests/bpf: make arena_base() opaque to GCC's -Warray-bounds
  selftests/bpf: don't report arena tests as passing with an empty body
  selftests/bpf: cast explicitly in the arena subprog and callback
    faults
  selftests/bpf: write the mixed arena/scalar ALU tests in asm

 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile          |   8 +-
 .../testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile.buildvars  |   6 +-
 .../bpf/libarena/include/bpf_arena_common.h   |  16 +++
 .../bpf/prog_tests/callx_rodata_lskel.c       |   2 +-
 .../selftests/bpf/progs/arena_kfunc_jit.c     |   9 ++
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_misc.h  |  21 +++
 .../selftests/bpf/progs/callx_rodata.c        |   4 +-
 .../bpf/progs/compute_live_registers.c        |  10 ++
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/stream.c    |   7 +-
 .../selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_arena.c      | 125 +++++++++---------
 .../bpf/progs/verifier_arena_large.c          |  24 ++--
 .../selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_callx.c      |   5 +-
 .../bpf/progs/verifier_callx_rodata.c         |   5 +-
 .../selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_ldsx.c       |   9 ++
 .../selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_zext.c       |   9 ++
 15 files changed, 163 insertions(+), 97 deletions(-)

-- 
2.53.0-Meta


                 reply	other threads:[~2026-10-28  0:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20261028000411.4010967-1-vineet.gupta@linux.dev \
    --to=vineet.gupta@linux.dev \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=david.faust@oss.qualcomm.com \
    --cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
    --cc=emil@etsalapatis.com \
    --cc=ihor.solodrai@linux.dev \
    --cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
    --cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
    --cc=jose.marchesi@oracle.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
    --cc=memxor@gmail.com \
    --cc=shuah@kernel.org \
    --cc=song@kernel.org \
    --cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®