-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 175
fix(userspace/libpman): fix modern ebpf failures in master kernel-testing #2282
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: FedeDP The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
Perf diff from master - unit tests
Heap diff from master - unit tests
Heap diff from master - scap file
Benchmarks diff from master
|
I'll wait for the kernel CI to amend the |
…r may not be checkable in `pman_prepare_progs_before_loading`. Instead, use `BPF_PROG_TYPE_RAW_TRACEPOINT` that works fine for the bpf helper probing. Signed-off-by: Federico Di Pierro <nierro92@gmail.com>
/milestone 0.21.0 |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #2282 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 75.33% 75.32% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 280 280
Lines 34556 34556
Branches 5901 5902 +1
==========================================
- Hits 26032 26031 -1
- Misses 8524 8525 +1
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
9cd3e18
to
451e9cc
Compare
X64 kernel testing matrix
ARM64 kernel testing matrix
|
I manually downloaded matrixes from the CI and the issue is fixed. To avoid losing time (s390x build...), i already force-pushed the branch and now we can wait for the kernel-testing comment too :) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yep, it seems fair, the only issue that we can face with this approach is that we have an helper that is supported by BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING
programs but it's not supported by BPF_PROG_TYPE_RAW_TRACEPOINT
. This could lead to a false negatives since we indeed use BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING
programs.
BTW the above case is quite unlikely so this could be a great workaround! Maybe just leave a comment so that we don't forget again about it
We'll have the linked PR in the blame 😆 |
What type of PR is this?
/kind bug
Any specific area of the project related to this PR?
/area driver-modern-bpf
/area libpman
Does this PR require a change in the driver versions?
What this PR does / why we need it:
Master kernel-testing did break on multiple modern ebpf kernels since #2255. See the comment on that PR: #2255 (comment)
Checking the edits on that comment, it seems like the culprit commit is 3e0e122.
Here the issue i think lies in the usage of
BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING
; indeed inpman_check_support
we have a fallback for it:I think that what's happening is that the check:
in lifecycle.c is failing because it cannot find
BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING
(and we don't have any fallback in that case).Since it works fine too using
BPF_PROG_TYPE_RAW_TRACEPOINT
, revert to use it instead.Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: