On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 12:34:58PM +0200, Brendan Jackman wrote: > On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 at 23:09, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > > > 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: > > > > > > > > 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? > > Sorry I was being stupid here - the test didn't exist at this commit > > > > 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 > > So yeah hard to say whether this was broken on PowerPC all along. How > hard is it for me to get set up to reproduce the failure? Is there a > rootfs I can download, and some instructions for running a PowerPC > QEMU VM? If so if you can also share your config and I'll take a look. > > If it's not as simple as that, I'll stare at the code for a while and > see if anything jumps out. > I have latest fedora ppc server and compile/install latest bpf-next tree I think it will be reproduced also on vm, I attached my config jirka