Bug 1846820

Hi Jiri,
I have built xdp-filter using libbpf.
Good enough to verify this bug?
Thanks!
Jean

[root@netqe29 xdp-tools]# uname -r
4.18.0-226.el8.x86_64
[root@netqe29 xdp-tools]# rpm -qa | grep libbpf
libbpf-0.0.8-2.el8.x86_64
libbpf-devel-0.0.8-2.el8.x86_64
[root@netqe29 xdp-tools]# 

[root@netqe29 xdp-tools]# ./configure
libbpf support: system
perf_buffer__consume support: no
[root@netqe29 xdp-tools]# cd xdp-filter/
[root@netqe29 xdp-filter]# make
    CC       staticobjs/libxdp.o
    LINK     libxdp.a
    CC       sharedobjs/libxdp.o
    LINK     libxdp.so.1.0.0
    M4       xdp-dispatcher.c
    CLANG    xdp-dispatcher.o
    LLC      xdp-dispatcher.o
    CC       params.o
    CC       logging.o
    CC       util.o
    CC       stats.o
    CC       xpcapng.o
    CLANG    xdpfilt_dny_udp.o
    LLC      xdpfilt_dny_udp.o
    CLANG    xdpfilt_dny_tcp.o
    LLC      xdpfilt_dny_tcp.o
    CLANG    xdpfilt_dny_ip.o
    LLC      xdpfilt_dny_ip.o
    CLANG    xdpfilt_dny_eth.o
    LLC      xdpfilt_dny_eth.o
    CLANG    xdpfilt_dny_all.o
    LLC      xdpfilt_dny_all.o
    CLANG    xdpfilt_alw_udp.o
    LLC      xdpfilt_alw_udp.o
    CLANG    xdpfilt_alw_tcp.o
    LLC      xdpfilt_alw_tcp.o
    CLANG    xdpfilt_alw_ip.o
    LLC      xdpfilt_alw_ip.o
    CLANG    xdpfilt_alw_eth.o
    LLC      xdpfilt_alw_eth.o
    CLANG    xdpfilt_alw_all.o
    LLC      xdpfilt_alw_all.o
    CC       xdp-filter
    LINK     xdp-dispatcher.o
[root@netqe29 xdp-filter]#

I recall Toke needed the libbpf change for xdp-tools,
but I dont know if it shows just by building xdp-tools

Toke?

this BZ is for libbpf update, so any standard test suite
we run for libbpf will do

(In reply to Jiri Olsa from comment #5)
> I recall Toke needed the libbpf change for xdp-tools,
> but I dont know if it shows just by building xdp-tools
For bug 1759154 Toke suggested using the new package to build xdp-tools/xdp-filter as a way of verification.

> 
> Toke?
> 
> this BZ is for libbpf update, so any standard test suite
> we run for libbpf will do


Not sure about "any standard test suite" . Can you point out some of them?
Thanks!
Jean

(In reply to Jean-Tsung Hsiao from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jiri Olsa from comment #5)
> > I recall Toke needed the libbpf change for xdp-tools,
> > but I dont know if it shows just by building xdp-tools
> For bug 1759154 Toke suggested using the new package to build
> xdp-tools/xdp-filter as a way of verification.
> 
> > 
> > Toke?
> > 
> > this BZ is for libbpf update, so any standard test suite
> > we run for libbpf will do
> 
> 
> Not sure about "any standard test suite" . Can you point out some of them?

nothing specific, I meant anything you'd normally run for libbpf

(In reply to Jiri Olsa from comment #7)
> (In reply to Jean-Tsung Hsiao from comment #6)
> > (In reply to Jiri Olsa from comment #5)
> > > I recall Toke needed the libbpf change for xdp-tools,
> > > but I dont know if it shows just by building xdp-tools
> > For bug 1759154 Toke suggested using the new package to build
> > xdp-tools/xdp-filter as a way of verification.
> > 
> > > 
> > > Toke?
> > > 
> > > this BZ is for libbpf update, so any standard test suite
> > > we run for libbpf will do
> > 
> > 
> > Not sure about "any standard test suite" . Can you point out some of them?
> 
> nothing specific, I meant anything you'd normally run for libbpf

As Toke, I used it to compile xdp-tools --- nothing else. It was successful. So, I would like to set the status to VERIFIED.

Looks like this was resolved, so clearing my needinfo :)

(And yeah, I don't think we have anything other than xdp-tools to test libbpf against for the time being; seeing as the kernel self-tests don't use the system libbpf version; so fine with me to have this verified by testing of xdp-tools compilation)

Hi Jiri,
Not sure why you changed the status to Modified.
Please advise.
Thanks!
Jean

(In reply to Jean-Tsung Hsiao from comment #11)
> Hi Jiri,
> Not sure why you changed the status to Modified.
> Please advise.
> Thanks!
> Jean

there was new build added to the errata at that time

jirka

(In reply to Jiri Olsa from comment #12)
> (In reply to Jean-Tsung Hsiao from comment #11)
> > Hi Jiri,
> > Not sure why you changed the status to Modified.
> > Please advise.
> > Thanks!
> > Jean
> 
> there was new build added to the errata at that time
> 
> jirka

I see. I'll test that.
Thanks!
Jean

Tested libbpf by compiling xdp-tools. It passed. See log below.
Will set status to VERIFIED.

[root@netqe10 xdp-tools]# rpm -q libbpf
libbpf-0.0.8-4.el8.x86_64
[root@netqe10 xdp-tools]# uname -r
4.18.0-234.el8.x86_64
[root@netqe10 xdp-tools]#

[root@netqe10 xdp-tools]# make

lib

  util
    CC       params.o
    CC       logging.o
    CC       util.o
    CC       stats.o
    CC       xpcapng.o

  libxdp
    CC       staticobjs/libxdp.o
    LINK     libxdp.a
    CC       sharedobjs/libxdp.o
    LINK     libxdp.so.1.0.0
    M4       xdp-dispatcher.c
    CLANG    xdp-dispatcher.o
    LLC      xdp-dispatcher.o

  testing
    CLANG    test_long_func_name.o
    LLC      test_long_func_name.o
    CLANG    xdp_drop.o
    LLC      xdp_drop.o
    CLANG    xdp_pass.o
    LLC      xdp_pass.o
    LINK     xdp-dispatcher.o

xdp-filter
    CLANG    xdpfilt_dny_udp.o
    LLC      xdpfilt_dny_udp.o
    CLANG    xdpfilt_dny_tcp.o
    LLC      xdpfilt_dny_tcp.o
    CLANG    xdpfilt_dny_ip.o
    LLC      xdpfilt_dny_ip.o
    CLANG    xdpfilt_dny_eth.o
    LLC      xdpfilt_dny_eth.o
    CLANG    xdpfilt_dny_all.o
    LLC      xdpfilt_dny_all.o
    CLANG    xdpfilt_alw_udp.o
    LLC      xdpfilt_alw_udp.o
    CLANG    xdpfilt_alw_tcp.o
    LLC      xdpfilt_alw_tcp.o
    CLANG    xdpfilt_alw_ip.o
    LLC      xdpfilt_alw_ip.o
    CLANG    xdpfilt_alw_eth.o
    LLC      xdpfilt_alw_eth.o
    CLANG    xdpfilt_alw_all.o
    LLC      xdpfilt_alw_all.o
    CC       xdp-filter
    LINK     xdp-dispatcher.o

xdp-loader
    CC       xdp-loader
    LINK     xdp-dispatcher.o

xdp-dump
    CC       xdpdump
    CLANG    xdpdump_bpf.o
    LLC      xdpdump_bpf.o
    LINK     xdp-dispatcher.o

(In reply to Jiri Olsa from comment #12)
> (In reply to Jean-Tsung Hsiao from comment #11)
> > Hi Jiri,
> > Not sure why you changed the status to Modified.
> > Please advise.
> > Thanks!
> > Jean
> 
> there was new build added to the errata at that time
> 
> jirka

Hi Jiri. It's a good practice tu update the Fixed In Version field when you change the status to MODIFIED. That helps prevents misunderstanding with QE wrt fixed versions.

Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory (libbpf bug fix and enhancement update), and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2020:4588