From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (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 863E634753F for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2026 07:08:07 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1780297688; cv=none; b=U5DMfVcA3nYJM2fyYBgclzhH3T4/CRCWUyJV2MSo2er5pdxiT0oAebclVhgTvTjfOxKR8daVkV5Eqpu3HdbwcmI2kI1SiYnd7WVL3rEayNWppJgRQMjWscu6mtT6yaxURkhkg6pSnfGhtJ6k3T8y9e9VYPLr+jVf8x36UdwkzEY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1780297688; c=relaxed/simple; bh=28WlBr73GRSuhvfIaXBlq/gytQfOpEjXmGv75NSVEQw=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=R2yDSgVyEz+C71bWNkUylzucGhA+1bpHYcAnV5vw4TsKBWfsfJTzwbp/cR1RVAMuAOvdoWm+5lTFMfUhlWYuvmy9Y/syquPA9PsqA6/Mvi8MMGsQ6NN1OWzxDZG60j3h5+S9lgmrvz2iCxcDuEQ8qauPH8Ex+6Z7Mv1wR3fh21E= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=h3khH0rT; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="h3khH0rT" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0FB321F00893; Mon, 1 Jun 2026 07:08:07 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1780297687; bh=wlehJoFM0jT999X3DRQNvBr+8Rzn7Ow3rtveiO6Hxw8=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=h3khH0rT3hWsk/i55FdyxxOXKUl8fkBGBArIpZ0V5eqOcu7arh0R06ksktKjxsA8s LNaOTWQbkQ1yJZnemR7HAHUKIJNlYA1jRhLBJs0P78kZM0t1csXJFPVyl7c7Lukfps qmDD1xMBmVtwf5gHq81f4y10rS4B8fFd5cqAn2v06x1nsKV6s/lIbrlBIczZUilnKK DnzgxhspKmnSE0soIXAM375WA4wtek3AG3EJwwOTpPPnFe0iKhqdmpmU7q7r3vM8Mg XlCpta/OJ8RdaVF75D9gF9qW4HIyRWFrtyXNzVUpwIJVlUzdmUFoO7b8YEEJOYf29k XS5ZZemHwjfWA== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf v2 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add regression test for kfunc implicit arg injection with stale register Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: chenyuan_fl@163.com Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260601064611.807637-3-chenyuan_fl@163.com> References: <20260601064611.807637-3-chenyuan_fl@163.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2026 07:08:06 +0000 Message-Id: <20260601070807.0FB321F00893@smtp.kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(= s) to consider: - [Low] The newly added multi-line comment documenting the aux injection te= st violates the BPF subsystem comment style guidelines by placing text on t= he same line as the opening `/*`. -- commit 1ef24f7e0744d3c963c7f542a86739e51e7b0b41 Author: Yuan Chen selftests/bpf: Add regression test for kfunc implicit arg injection with st= ale register This commit adds a selftest to verify that the BPF verifier correctly injec= ts the implicit bpf_prog_aux pointer for KF_IMPLICIT_ARGS kfuncs. It explicitly contaminates the register mapping to the second argument with a magic value to ensure the kernel overwrites it with the real pointer. > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_assoc.c b/tools= /testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_assoc.c > index 68842e3f936b9..dd322d43ff5e4 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_assoc.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_assoc.c > @@ -103,3 +103,43 @@ SEC(".struct_ops.link") > struct bpf_testmod_multi_st_ops st_ops_map_b =3D { > .test_1 =3D (void *)test_1_b, > }; > + > +/* Test for aux injection with stale register contamination. > + * > + * This test reproduces the scenario where the BPF verifier fails to [Severity: Low] This isn't a bug, but does this multi-line comment follow the preferred BPF subsystem comment style? The guidelines require multi-line comments to have the opening /* on its own line, rather than having text on the same line as the opening marker. [ ... ] --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260601064611.8076= 37-1-chenyuan_fl@163.com?part=3D2