From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-qk1-f171.google.com (mail-qk1-f171.google.com [209.85.222.171]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 535AB372B3F for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2026 15:57:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.222.171 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773244622; cv=none; b=uf5RRjvpBu5vxvwtjGi5lslK7818MBzh3E89cacUxyM6nk13kl+WVO2GN8hgsZqXaPjYdVBBNpexVJgVSORXsdIehLdHbMCZg0EDdoO+gZDBWkWi2aDEo8zOALj2Qe4uv5Hhlc2SN+L3C3RojhCnG1cauOQNBRDVrY41quWni/s= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773244622; c=relaxed/simple; bh=f5g5NWN4qwwYTPK6cTHmK6+E5XPwTlNKpTtoNyYOZ6E=; h=Mime-Version:Content-Type:Date:Message-Id:Subject:From:To:Cc: References:In-Reply-To; b=b0oCaD9SL7M9qa98VZwfU/qDcULNeBh7BJWsZVY8kzqDQobliAm6VdBt6PUEZ5vbZf9J+LaAqV8S/0mwzFTCS5tgQKI9NM5epVGs2LkMz6pH1IrgX7HQZmJHH1nwWYPnyKJTKwwjRPAlUrjpOdjnhJ+nQhR4k0MD3LdIh9y8xf8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=etsalapatis.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=etsalapatis.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=etsalapatis-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.i=@etsalapatis-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.b=oYsWVuVw; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.222.171 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=etsalapatis.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=etsalapatis.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=etsalapatis-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.i=@etsalapatis-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.b="oYsWVuVw" Received: by mail-qk1-f171.google.com with SMTP id af79cd13be357-8cd71fb9f06so350626985a.2 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2026 08:57:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=etsalapatis-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1773244619; x=1773849419; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:references:cc:to:from:subject:message-id:date :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=eqjnrikQXGH3suAtnbwio+Ftux9br8uF4UCOSbRtEbc=; b=oYsWVuVw39jn2YsZLlgwZigEHW2s1IdkRUoY0naeZLTycc739PuWiK95O8cVoJDTCI 33PvYxaPKuKNEQOLAjadkNVHiSBcvW2OJjk0NFoOOr98UyhXf7l9YX+QoqJlIhGBZqbe q4pJUPdKght7VulkDN+kLF9MBrTqLKvNNh8gLpc/bKnAhIGGEsGL8csCVcdCk6/c0Ev0 7UqKcntv++vhLKP7l1qxzUPqSpNuqsKLJrDXMVxmiYRd19u+GJdMUsvbpO9ERomEeyYg mwrJZ/xovsos4Wuec9EnrdJe0dFJdaFcvuotW2nOyPIbk98jCNAF3ejDcy1Hakp3jTx9 9fyg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1773244619; x=1773849419; h=in-reply-to:references:cc:to:from:subject:message-id:date :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=eqjnrikQXGH3suAtnbwio+Ftux9br8uF4UCOSbRtEbc=; b=tIbTp5BZBEn9+0JPRCNbcUV31P82ETuHqhJVdO+huPkgHUgFN/AfEC85NFoYrAywDs QNRCiZpcHCcs7Zh/RC+5gcNar38dQgAkrgJNe2OaeS8/01cmLuqCnLxfqyjBC0WpYyHp Bm/Qr0ahGZ6RivdAEfjVHr16zUZe/77i9zYm7pbuIBrmQIdXMFqp3C+0fM78VeB4gkfy 5jqvM3r6h6sqpR5XTV7KWwP9hmVBggn9veoPBdyubmVjhuH4NSqweL4vPY47v6+3cmT5 5PZFDzALdfarRu86FlP/VWFfedeUztl+CSQfhThCQzVvz3XjD5Y9/00UiNr5ejppSfaq PURw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWEZ8mbHYrYyNpVvVyo0AiTpb3WEVRxy2oo57wwI3Icf4DCJCloJJQE2MUfHHtpuK5cs1GrG4GfevuyA/8=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yyt8zpW6fTO1ajTuz3W6U1sWpBFSXWQ8tbIElloddYRp1ILnSAx uvzs56XUt38VXMq/Ytr873P5RcNX40UmWAQias4Wb4+y/3c9IKbbHgivNi5p+PItj34= X-Gm-Gg: ATEYQzwfCR7yOemVvOUsEk8iMDx42+vUWtTwOY3IwAriEC2g+zIfepUM+em+3hjoAK7 Jm5CxbrknK2SdR7KDpOHjtS6q2yWBQ5FpxjaI5w4Eq6ESARUpfm7MDxNcIr0w8zLRwxQUOa5lHR 7v8L7r2hpIbZJJGea7Q56YSDBbxfZvZ3X0OyPnax+12yssmUU8Ys7arnYzsRCHP5vaH6JFN/LiD cblglo26XUIzjfFyqR5YoFv0OokoVDKz78zDsWHDeV/KJmkhWg0jgPpzJyjKfSBqIKF1nRmnSvP ieYFLR4ojeg5bQ5v1rEmldHJfZOoVLYp8Kj7jXXCnCTo3PyH5DoQIQoNZ5tb0gGigXab1jvun+b OxsHVOEgTWOLYCjVyCs39hBMvmCthSF4obL3E2y1ELQU1I5r9IgiziQ/tD56d0E8InnRFnJ62Ax 5ZtbrDd9wGPxK8cIoJGJX+Gaw= X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:6cc5:b0:8cb:4ba9:ccec with SMTP id af79cd13be357-8cda1a7ceb0mr365476285a.72.1773244619117; Wed, 11 Mar 2026 08:56:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([140.174.219.137]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id af79cd13be357-8cda1fda2c6sm157668785a.13.2026.03.11.08.56.58 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 11 Mar 2026 08:56:58 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2026 11:56:57 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1 1/2] selftests/bpf: Check alignment flag if expected result is REJECT From: "Emil Tsalapatis" To: "Tiezhu Yang" , "Alexei Starovoitov" , "Daniel Borkmann" , "Andrii Nakryiko" , "Hengqi Chen" Cc: , , X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.1 References: <20260310064507.4228-1-yangtiezhu@loongson.cn> <20260310064507.4228-2-yangtiezhu@loongson.cn> In-Reply-To: <20260310064507.4228-2-yangtiezhu@loongson.cn> On Tue Mar 10, 2026 at 2:45 AM EDT, Tiezhu Yang wrote: > CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS is set unconditionally for the > most archs such as x86_64, aarch64, ppc64el and s390x, but this config > may be not set by users for riscv64 and loongarch64. > > If CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS is not set, the BPF verifier > detects if a program has unaligned access and then rejects them. So it > should also check the flag F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS if the > expected result is REJECT and set alignment_prevented_execution as 1, > then the message "(NOTE: not executed due to unknown alignment)" can > be printed for some testcases of test_verifier to reflect the reality. > > Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang > --- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/= selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c > index a8ae03c57bba..a1ae2f044e96 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c > @@ -1640,6 +1640,11 @@ static void do_test_single(struct bpf_test *test, = bool unpriv, > printf("FAIL\nUnexpected success to load!\n"); > goto fail_log; > } > +#ifndef CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS > + if (fd_prog < 0 && > + (test->flags & F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS)) > + alignment_prevented_execution =3D 1; > +#endif This doesn't look like it's breaking anything, but it will cause all=20 tests with F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED ACCESS to be reported as failing=20 due to unaligned accesses even if they actually failed due to expected=20 errors at load time.=20 Which test programs is this fix targeted towards? Can't we just skip those tests for riscv/loongarch instead of adding this workaround? > if (!expected_err || !cmp_str_seq(bpf_vlog, expected_err)) { > printf("FAIL\nUnexpected error message!\n\tEXP: %s\n\tRES: %s\n", > expected_err, bpf_vlog);