From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 240602777E8; Thu, 31 Jul 2025 22:29:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.20 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754000981; cv=none; b=EiXFW/3RHFShDnEj5m2j/ELx5Cn4yaPNaPCNy2JwcMb+fHLgv9JeMlY4vLx69TXKd9kbLWA5uoDjFbQPLjGaSJ1E7cHZ20KwSytDYnKD2W3LgEmzf/3216zJFoRB8teNCImJIJsoKsh2Cuc8InEN0YBUZz0mRPuYsm1GYWrD8z4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754000981; c=relaxed/simple; bh=KzlZ+JTGzDjXQzM1ODwtEYqyZ+h/YI+hr6FqovTMq+w=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=OEg9nKulqT0CfWDEJoyLCMDGb0eqe90PTucCQGnKmSeS8y6EhKOPNVbL9tbgntIOGBG+Da0ccisMRuGt7XNHPJ1BenKL75Fqw6PSdTIlZdNmFKk4MGwEuEOqS5gWQIgMg+CCFfQUbEuKHlNj6RCuSexTpg4ikmgNXN9uhS6ssrM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=kOpjLkMx; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.20 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="kOpjLkMx" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1754000980; x=1785536980; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=KzlZ+JTGzDjXQzM1ODwtEYqyZ+h/YI+hr6FqovTMq+w=; b=kOpjLkMxOPYRVPjBhc2knG1M2nVi9opW6isYI1bIA2Wi4GlT6sDyuIOW 8+ju4LsISMwusb3g5ib10gt401T6RW2h0uY8DIxW45ftjucwgFerGcXi7 QGL4A7AWDorCU4L3cOVfomw/hnl6Hg0uHnU8eGvkZ87WPrvZTqLQZborB hB+slhC/5Znsmd6VHyKuGD60sBjRK45Rze+MTkwD+SUWNIoeyJAVxdCDt LxqkyeWiGO9HDq72fFv7Uv9BxyYmlLlks6AMR+abGcs9H79x+XR+WLdvl f0JXKew5KIXphJ+oM1+0xpYXz4OgKtRDSG8l0Y3Yy4MFjDVPzTUB08Re0 Q==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 9gcWIbbtQIuG+TFpMT3EGg== X-CSE-MsgGUID: X3D2bkInTqSXpRrHfp7hRQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11508"; a="56038121" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.17,255,1747724400"; d="scan'208";a="56038121" Received: from fmviesa006.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.146]) by orvoesa112.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 31 Jul 2025 15:29:40 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: aqcDJqGhSxCRX/RaGhNRVQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: ss1G1ZHQR9ycKIDy0XgIDg== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.17,255,1747724400"; d="scan'208";a="163301179" Received: from lkp-server01.sh.intel.com (HELO 160750d4a34c) ([10.239.97.150]) by fmviesa006.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 31 Jul 2025 15:29:38 -0700 Received: from kbuild by 160750d4a34c with local (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1uhbmK-00049G-08; Thu, 31 Jul 2025 22:29:36 +0000 Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2025 06:28:47 +0800 From: kernel test robot To: James Bottomley , bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: oe-kbuild-all@lists.linux.dev, Roberto Sassu Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] bpf: eliminate the allocation of an intermediate struct bpf_key Message-ID: <202508010803.nlVVIZ7G-lkp@intel.com> References: <20250730172745.8480-4-James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250730172745.8480-4-James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> Hi James, kernel test robot noticed the following build warnings: [auto build test WARNING on bpf-next/master] [also build test WARNING on bpf/master linus/master v6.16 next-20250731] [cannot apply to bpf-next/net] [If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note. And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch#_base_tree_information] url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/James-Bottomley/bpf-make-bpf_key-an-opaque-type/20250731-013040 base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next.git master patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250730172745.8480-4-James.Bottomley%40HansenPartnership.com patch subject: [PATCH v2 3/3] bpf: eliminate the allocation of an intermediate struct bpf_key config: i386-randconfig-141-20250731 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250801/202508010803.nlVVIZ7G-lkp@intel.com/config) compiler: gcc-11 (Debian 11.3.0-12) 11.3.0 If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags | Reported-by: kernel test robot | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202508010803.nlVVIZ7G-lkp@intel.com/ smatch warnings: kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:1337 bpf_key_put() warn: always true condition '(key != BUILTIN_KEY) => (0-u32max != u64max)' vim +1337 kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c 1324 1325 /** 1326 * bpf_key_put - decrement key reference count if key is valid and free bpf_key 1327 * @bkey: bpf_key structure 1328 * 1329 * Decrement the reference count of the key inside *bkey*, if the pointer 1330 * is valid, and free *bkey*. 1331 */ 1332 __bpf_kfunc void bpf_key_put(struct bpf_key *bkey) 1333 { 1334 struct key *key = (struct key *)bkey; 1335 1336 if (system_keyring_id_check((unsigned long)key) < 0 && > 1337 (unsigned long)key != BUILTIN_KEY) 1338 key_put(key); 1339 } 1340 -- 0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki