Re: [PATCHv3 bpf-next 6/7] selftests/bpf: Add uprobe_multi path_fd fail tests

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Low] The patch introduces a compilation failure because it uses the undeclared macro BPF_F_UPROBE_MULTI_PATH_FD and references a non-existent struct member 'path_fd' in struct bpf_link_create_opts.
--

commit acbff7cfc9a00c3bfed7027c436c6abc5a678d5d
Author: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>

selftests/bpf: Add uprobe_multi path_fd fail tests

This commit adds new tests to the attach_api_fails suite in
uprobe_multi_test.c to ensure that incorrect setups using path_fd fail
as expected.

> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_multi_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_multi_test.c
> index 56cbea280fbd2..58a7db7fba902 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_multi_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_multi_test.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -536,7 +536,37 @@ static void test_attach_api_fails(void)
>  	link_fd = bpf_link_create(prog_fd, 0, BPF_TRACE_UPROBE_MULTI, &opts);
>  	if (!ASSERT_ERR(link_fd, "link_fd"))
>  		goto cleanup;
> -	ASSERT_EQ(link_fd, -EINVAL, "pid_is_wrong");
> +	if (!ASSERT_EQ(link_fd, -EINVAL, "pid_is_wrong"))
> +		goto cleanup;
> +
> +	/* wrong path_fd */
> +	LIBBPF_OPTS_RESET(opts,
> +		.uprobe_multi.path = NULL,
> +		.uprobe_multi.path_fd = -1,
> +		.uprobe_multi.flags = BPF_F_UPROBE_MULTI_PATH_FD,

[Severity: Low]
Does this cause a compilation failure? The struct member path_fd in
bpf_link_create_opts and the BPF_F_UPROBE_MULTI_PATH_FD macro appear to be
missing or undeclared here, which would typically cause the compiler to fail
with an undeclared identifier error.

> +		.uprobe_multi.offsets = (unsigned long *)&offset,
> +		.uprobe_multi.cnt = 1,
> +	);

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260611114230.950379-7-jolsa@kernel.org?part=1