Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 29 Jun 2021 18:41:21 +0200
From:   Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
To:     Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com>
Cc:     bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@chromium.org>,
        Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.ibm.com>,
        Sandipan Das <sandipan@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG soft lockup] Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3] bpf: Propagate stack
 bounds to registers in atomics w/ BPF_FETCH
Message-ID: <YNtNMSSZh3LTp2we@krava>
References: <20210202135002.4024825-1-jackmanb@google.com>
 <YNiadhIbJBBPeOr6@krava>
 <CA+i-1C0DAr5ecAOV06_fqeCooic4AF=71ur63HJ6ddbj9ceDpQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <YNspwB8ejUeRIVxt@krava>
 <YNtEcjYvSvk8uknO@krava>
 <CA+i-1C3RDT1Y=A7rAitfbrUUDXxCJeXJLw1oABBCpBubm5De6A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+i-1C3RDT1Y=A7rAitfbrUUDXxCJeXJLw1oABBCpBubm5De6A@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 06:25:33PM +0200, Brendan Jackman wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 at 18:04, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> 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:
> > > > On Sun, 27 Jun 2021 at 17:34, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 01:50:02PM +0000, Brendan Jackman wrote:
> [snip]
> > > > Hmm, is the test prog from atomic_bounds.c getting JITed there (my
> > > > dumb guess at what '0xc0000000119efb30 (unreliable)' means)? That
> > > > shouldn't happen - should get 'eBPF filter atomic op code %02x (@%d)
> > > > unsupported\n' in dmesg instead. I wonder if I missed something in
> > > > commit 91c960b0056 (bpf: Rename BPF_XADD and prepare to encode other
> >
> > I see that for all the other atomics tests:
> >
> > [root@ibm-p9z-07-lp1 bpf]# ./test_verifier 21
> > #21/p BPF_ATOMIC_AND without fetch FAIL
> > Failed to load prog 'Unknown error 524'!
> > verification time 32 usec
> > stack depth 8
> > processed 10 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 0 total_states 1 peak_states 1 mark_read 1
> > Summary: 0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 2 FAILED
> 
> Hm that's also not good - failure to JIT shouldn't mean failure to
> load. Are there other test_verifier failures or is it just the atomics
> ones?

I have CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON=y so I think that's fine

> 
> > console:
> >
> >         [   51.850952] eBPF filter atomic op code db (@2) unsupported
> >         [   51.851134] eBPF filter atomic op code db (@2) unsupported
> >
> >
> > [root@ibm-p9z-07-lp1 bpf]# ./test_verifier 22
> > #22/u BPF_ATOMIC_AND with fetch FAIL
> > Failed to load prog 'Unknown error 524'!
> > verification time 38 usec
> > stack depth 8
> > processed 14 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 0 total_states 1 peak_states 1 mark_read 1
> > #22/p BPF_ATOMIC_AND with fetch FAIL
> > Failed to load prog 'Unknown error 524'!
> > verification time 26 usec
> > stack depth 8
> > processed 14 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 0 total_states 1 peak_states 1 mark_read 1
> >
> > console:
> >         [  223.231420] eBPF filter atomic op code db (@3) unsupported
> >         [  223.231596] eBPF filter atomic op code db (@3) unsupported
> >
> > ...
> >
> >
> > but no such console output for:
> >
> > [root@ibm-p9z-07-lp1 bpf]# ./test_verifier 24
> > #24/u BPF_ATOMIC bounds propagation, mem->reg OK
> >
> >
> > > > 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?
> 

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

jirka