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 4132E3F4DCF for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2026 09:12:25 +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=1787130746; cv=none; b=ttheBKFRCvfnIIcpM85VYrTpCQDcYU8L3kOsK2YT4sgH8JDk1q66CPpzI4gsUZYbQEEn+iQYgKmI6Q9hW7Ctbj7qK0wTHg5CFWz60Tvgo9ACilh2rNSdx8FtwdJQzJzuxy2spB40UEBgRWgkgS9dRHSi1dY9PMwUJoWSpKJeFqE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1787130746; c=relaxed/simple; bh=wWsXxUAxW9Uv6vWuTfkpWbl+/olGaaBrRCztvovgLhM=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=PoyCvhU7VVrYy1IDjdk9E4QI5u2jngN4bY1ajnyNq7ItJYEaFiqvM25aVwnZo49HhBTnLIksnyuUPbRoOszFk/OTwggL1knbWU2M1B1Ho2JnVcn2BW0utTyc0NwELGRe+XZ4MIBwfxmfx3RIzhGnBHFXev7Wmf5TfXXJ48I1Q7Q= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=InTT3GxM; 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="InTT3GxM" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ED5CB1F00A3D; Wed, 19 Aug 2026 09:12:24 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1787130745; bh=qxALwQ6phVaYevk7vs1LeK5oCM0fXQtDciosgXlYVgY=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=InTT3GxMNmCP+3MPxBhnYzcNzNe86hOaoa523b4uE4eQZ+vYDWqRu90c8yq5VMY7s GEWIop3hfBUIt1ohHVFISsJVq4AvKodQBdjXzpCr3aJdGl7SayqjreAmcNwnhSUz9m JSRT4pBOBCyWonTLOnUKkrDcQmGFx2W4IvX1lKlvSsjY7qa3smyqpJcFvJaFUKS/k9 XOJTTG4uKLoOXGD+keEMD15foi7BwuwosHp9j+c3X8A7ZzklcKgagKq16MZcJG9NHG Rirk/iBjwy245R2oP60XhqOy/Rekt8vdoGmg/9K4BXjfT1L1NJz3Rv3hHj/5K2xhh9 m/RHE9eluO7Kw== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next v3 2/2] selftests/bpf: add tests for selective kmod BTF loading Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Fuyu Zhao" Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260819090426.267-3-zhaofuyu@vivo.com> References: <20260819090426.267-1-zhaofuyu@vivo.com> <20260819090426.267-3-zhaofuyu@vivo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2026 09:12:24 +0000 Message-Id: <20260819091224.ED5CB1F00A3D@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: - [Medium] The custom libbpf print callback silently drops all non-matching= libbpf logs, hiding crucial diagnostic information if the test fails. -- --- Patch [2]: [RFC PATCH bpf-next v3 2/2] selftests/bpf: add tests for sel= ective kmod BTF loading --- commit 17f3a2340dd7be0947e3baabf30a8c7722ec91fe Author: Fuyu Zhao selftests/bpf: add tests for selective kmod BTF loading This commit adds tests for the selective kmod BTF loading feature. It covers scenarios such as valid modules, non-existent modules, duplicate names, unneeded modules, and missing count properties. > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kmod_btfs.c b/tools/t= esting/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kmod_btfs.c > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000000000..61d2845a731ff > --- /dev/null > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kmod_btfs.c > @@ -0,0 +1,196 @@ > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > +#include > +#include "kmod_btfs.skel.h" [ ... ] > +static int libbpf_print_cb(enum libbpf_print_level level, const char *fm= t, > + va_list args) > +{ > + if (!strcmp(fmt, btf_skip_fmt)) { > + if (!strcmp(va_arg(args, char *), "bpf_test_no_cfi")) > + btf_skipped =3D true; > + } else if (!strcmp(fmt, dup_ignore_fmt)) { > + if (!strcmp(va_arg(args, char *), "bpf_testmod")) > + dup_ignored =3D true; > + } > + > + return 0; > +} [Severity: Medium] Does this unconditionally swallow all other libbpf debug, info, and error l= ogs? Since old_print_cb is stored as a local variable in the subtests (like kmod_btfs_dup and kmod_btfs_skip) rather than globally, this callback has no way to forward unmatched logs to the original handler. If a BPF program fai= ls to load during these tests, will the underlying verifier or libbpf errors be completely hidden, making CI failures harder to debug? --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260819090426.267-= 1-zhaofuyu@vivo.com?part=3D2