On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 5:59 AM Daniel Borkmann <dan...@iogearbox.net> wrote: > > On 07/12/2019 08:03 AM, Yonghong Song wrote: > > On 7/10/19 11:53 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > >> BTF size resolution logic isn't always resolving type size correctly, > >> leading > >> to erroneous map creation failures due to value size mismatch. > >> > >> This patch set: > >> 1. fixes the issue (patch #1); > >> 2. adds tests for trickier cases (patch #2); > >> 3. and converts few test cases utilizing BTF-defined maps, that previously > >> couldn't use typedef'ed arrays due to kernel bug (patch #3). > >> > >> Patch #1 can be applied against bpf tree, but selftest ones (#2 and #3) > >> have > >> to go against bpf-next for now. > > > > Why #2 and #3 have to go to bpf-next? bpf tree also accepts tests, > > AFAIK. Maybe leave for Daniel and Alexei to decide in this particular case. > > Yes, corresponding test cases for fixes are also accepted for bpf tree, > thanks.
Thanks for merging, Daniel! My thinking was that at the time I posted patch set, BTF-defined map tests weren't yet merged into bpf, so I assumed it has to go against bpf-next. > > >> Andrii Nakryiko (3): > >> bpf: fix BTF verifier size resolution logic > >> selftests/bpf: add trickier size resolution tests > >> selftests/bpf: use typedef'ed arrays as map values > > > > Looks good to me. Except minor comments in patch 1/3, Ack the series. > > Acked-by: Yonghong Song <y...@fb.com> > > > >> > >> kernel/bpf/btf.c | 14 ++- > >> .../bpf/progs/test_get_stack_rawtp.c | 3 +- > >> .../bpf/progs/test_stacktrace_build_id.c | 3 +- > >> .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_stacktrace_map.c | 2 +- > >> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_btf.c | 88 +++++++++++++++++++ > >> 5 files changed, 102 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > >> >
