* [PATCH bpf-next v1] selftests/bpf: Add test for indirect struct_ops trampoline
@ 2026-08-28 4:27 Tiezhu Yang
2026-08-28 4:36 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-28 5:29 ` bot+bpf-ci
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Tiezhu Yang @ 2026-08-28 4:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko,
Eduard Zingerman, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi, Martin KaFai Lau,
Song Liu, Yonghong Song, Jiri Olsa, Emil Tsalapatis,
Ihor Solodrai
Cc: loongarch, bpf, linux-kernel
Add a test case to verify that arguments passed on the stack are correctly
read by indirect struct_ops trampoline. This test ensures the correctness
of stack offsets on architectures like LoongArch and RISC-V.
Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn>
---
This is to test the following two patches:
bpf, riscv: Fix stack-passed arguments for indirect trampolines
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20260821233516.3426127-3-memxor@gmail.com/
bpf, loongarch: Fix stack arguments for indirect trampolines
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20260821233516.3426127-8-memxor@gmail.com/
.../prog_tests/test_struct_ops_trampoline.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++
.../bpf/progs/struct_ops_trampoline.c | 24 +++++++++++
.../selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c | 18 ++++++++
.../selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.h | 5 +++
4 files changed, 88 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_struct_ops_trampoline.c
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_trampoline.c
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_struct_ops_trampoline.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_struct_ops_trampoline.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..5a21aedd02fc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_struct_ops_trampoline.c
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+#include <test_progs.h>
+#include "struct_ops_trampoline.skel.h"
+
+#if defined(__loongarch__) || defined(__riscv)
+static void run_struct_ops_trampoline(void)
+{
+ struct struct_ops_trampoline *skel;
+ struct bpf_link *link;
+ int err;
+
+ skel = struct_ops_trampoline__open();
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "struct_ops_trampoline__open"))
+ return;
+
+ err = struct_ops_trampoline__load(skel);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "struct_ops_trampoline__load"))
+ goto cleanup;
+
+ link = bpf_map__attach_struct_ops(skel->maps.testmod_trampoline);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(link, "attach_struct_ops"))
+ goto cleanup;
+
+ ASSERT_OK(trigger_module_test_read(256), "trigger_read");
+
+ ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->got_arg9, 9999, "check_stack_passed_arg9");
+
+ bpf_link__destroy(link);
+cleanup:
+ struct_ops_trampoline__destroy(skel);
+}
+#endif
+
+void test_struct_ops_trampoline(void)
+{
+#if defined(__loongarch__) || defined(__riscv)
+ run_struct_ops_trampoline();
+#else
+ test__skip();
+#endif
+}
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_trampoline.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_trampoline.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..b0fc19a2a0c5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_trampoline.c
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+#include <vmlinux.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
+#include "../test_kmods/bpf_testmod.h"
+#include "bpf_misc.h"
+
+char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
+
+__u64 got_arg9 = 0;
+
+SEC("struct_ops/test_trampoline")
+int BPF_PROG(test_trampoline, int arg1, int arg2, int arg3,
+ int arg4, int arg5, int arg6,
+ int arg7, int arg8, int arg9)
+{
+ got_arg9 = arg9;
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+SEC(".struct_ops.link")
+struct bpf_testmod_ops testmod_trampoline = {
+ .test_trampoline = (void *)test_trampoline,
+};
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c
index 850cf4f830c4..be96bbc1b7c0 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c
@@ -589,6 +589,9 @@ noinline int bpf_testmod_trampoline_count_test(void)
return 0;
}
+struct bpf_testmod_ops;
+static struct bpf_testmod_ops *st_ops_trampoline;
+
noinline ssize_t
bpf_testmod_test_read(struct file *file, struct kobject *kobj,
const struct bin_attribute *bin_attr,
@@ -637,6 +640,9 @@ bpf_testmod_test_read(struct file *file, struct kobject *kobj,
bpf_testmod_test_struct_ops3();
+ if (st_ops_trampoline && st_ops_trampoline->test_trampoline)
+ st_ops_trampoline->test_trampoline(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9999);
+
struct_arg3 = kmalloc((sizeof(struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_3) +
sizeof(int)), GFP_KERNEL);
if (struct_arg3 != NULL) {
@@ -1619,6 +1625,10 @@ static int bpf_testmod_ops_init_member(const struct btf_type *t,
((struct bpf_testmod_ops *)kdata)->data = ((struct bpf_testmod_ops *)udata)->data;
return 1;
}
+
+ if (member->offset == offsetof(struct bpf_testmod_ops, test_trampoline) * 8)
+ st_ops_trampoline = (struct bpf_testmod_ops *)kdata;
+
return 0;
}
@@ -1694,6 +1704,13 @@ bpf_testmod_ops__test_return_ref_kptr(int dummy, struct task_struct *task__ref,
return NULL;
}
+static int bpf_testmod_ops__test_trampoline(int arg1, int arg2, int arg3,
+ int arg4, int arg5, int arg6,
+ int arg7, int arg8, int arg9)
+{
+ return arg9;
+}
+
static struct bpf_testmod_ops __bpf_testmod_ops = {
.test_1 = bpf_testmod_test_1,
.test_2 = bpf_testmod_test_2,
@@ -1701,6 +1718,7 @@ static struct bpf_testmod_ops __bpf_testmod_ops = {
.test_refcounted = bpf_testmod_ops__test_refcounted,
.test_refcounted_multi = bpf_testmod_ops__test_refcounted_multi,
.test_return_ref_kptr = bpf_testmod_ops__test_return_ref_kptr,
+ .test_trampoline = bpf_testmod_ops__test_trampoline,
};
struct bpf_struct_ops bpf_bpf_testmod_ops = {
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.h
index 210b919290cc..a5349d09ce55 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.h
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.h
@@ -46,6 +46,11 @@ struct bpf_testmod_ops {
struct task_struct *(*test_return_ref_kptr)(int dummy, struct task_struct *task,
struct cgroup *cgrp);
+ /* Used to test indirect struct_ops trampolines stack-passed arguments (>8 args). */
+ int (*test_trampoline)(int arg1, int arg2, int arg3,
+ int arg4, int arg5, int arg6,
+ int arg7, int arg8, int arg9);
+
/* The following fields are used to test shadow copies. */
char onebyte;
struct {
--
2.42.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1] selftests/bpf: Add test for indirect struct_ops trampoline
2026-08-28 4:27 [PATCH bpf-next v1] selftests/bpf: Add test for indirect struct_ops trampoline Tiezhu Yang
@ 2026-08-28 4:36 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-28 9:12 ` Tiezhu Yang
2026-08-28 5:29 ` bot+bpf-ci
1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: sashiko-bot @ 2026-08-28 4:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tiezhu Yang; +Cc: bpf
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [High] Use-After-Free and data races due to statically assigned and uncleared struct_ops pointer.
--
commit 23e6150eb62c7059e7721142219a9a87264e2e46
Author: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn>
selftests/bpf: Add test for indirect struct_ops trampoline
This commit adds a test case to verify that arguments passed on the stack
are correctly read by the indirect struct_ops trampoline. It ensures the
correctness of stack offsets on architectures like LoongArch and RISC-V.
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_struct_ops_trampoline.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_struct_ops_trampoline.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000000..5a21aedd02fc5
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_struct_ops_trampoline.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +#include <test_progs.h>
> +#include "struct_ops_trampoline.skel.h"
> +
> +#if defined(__loongarch__) || defined(__riscv)
> +static void run_struct_ops_trampoline(void)
> +{
[ ... ]
> + bpf_link__destroy(link);
> +cleanup:
> + struct_ops_trampoline__destroy(skel);
[Severity: High]
Does this call to struct_ops_trampoline__destroy() free the map?
Later in this diff, we see that st_ops_trampoline in bpf_testmod.c is
assigned dynamically allocated memory from this map. When the map is freed
here, st_ops_trampoline appears to become a dangling pointer.
> +}
> +#endif
[ ... ]
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c
> index 850cf4f830c48..be96bbc1b7c04 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -637,6 +640,9 @@ bpf_testmod_test_read(struct file *file, struct kobject *kobj,
>
> bpf_testmod_test_struct_ops3();
>
> + if (st_ops_trampoline && st_ops_trampoline->test_trampoline)
> + st_ops_trampoline->test_trampoline(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9999);
[Severity: High]
Since st_ops_trampoline is never cleared after the map is freed, could this
result in a use-after-free?
Any subsequent or parallel test in the suite that triggers
trigger_module_test_read() will invoke bpf_testmod_test_read(), incorrectly
evaluate st_ops_trampoline as valid, and dereference the freed memory.
> +
> struct_arg3 = kmalloc((sizeof(struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_3) +
> sizeof(int)), GFP_KERNEL);
[ ... ]
> @@ -1619,6 +1625,10 @@ static int bpf_testmod_ops_init_member(const struct btf_type *t,
> ((struct bpf_testmod_ops *)kdata)->data = ((struct bpf_testmod_ops *)udata)->data;
> return 1;
> }
> +
> + if (member->offset == offsetof(struct bpf_testmod_ops, test_trampoline) * 8)
> + st_ops_trampoline = (struct bpf_testmod_ops *)kdata;
[Severity: High]
Is it safe to unconditionally assign this global pointer to the map's
dynamically allocated memory during initialization without setting up a
cleanup mechanism?
Additionally, this assignment appears to occur without locking at map creation
time, meaning parallel test runs could race to overwrite this pointer.
> +
> return 0;
> }
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260828042715.16546-1-yangtiezhu@loongson.cn?part=1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1] selftests/bpf: Add test for indirect struct_ops trampoline
2026-08-28 4:36 ` sashiko-bot
@ 2026-08-28 9:12 ` Tiezhu Yang
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Tiezhu Yang @ 2026-08-28 9:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: sashiko-reviews; +Cc: bpf
On 2026/8/28 下午12:36, sashiko-bot@kernel.org wrote:
> Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
> - [High] Use-After-Free and data races due to statically assigned and uncleared struct_ops pointer.
> --
>
> commit 23e6150eb62c7059e7721142219a9a87264e2e46
> Author: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn>
>
> selftests/bpf: Add test for indirect struct_ops trampoline
>
> This commit adds a test case to verify that arguments passed on the stack
> are correctly read by the indirect struct_ops trampoline. It ensures the
> correctness of stack offsets on architectures like LoongArch and RISC-V.
>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_struct_ops_trampoline.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_struct_ops_trampoline.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000000000..5a21aedd02fc5
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_struct_ops_trampoline.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>> +#include <test_progs.h>
>> +#include "struct_ops_trampoline.skel.h"
>> +
>> +#if defined(__loongarch__) || defined(__riscv)
>> +static void run_struct_ops_trampoline(void)
>> +{
> [ ... ]
>> + bpf_link__destroy(link);
>> +cleanup:
>> + struct_ops_trampoline__destroy(skel);
>
> [Severity: High]
> Does this call to struct_ops_trampoline__destroy() free the map?
>
> Later in this diff, we see that st_ops_trampoline in bpf_testmod.c is
> assigned dynamically allocated memory from this map. When the map is freed
> here, st_ops_trampoline appears to become a dangling pointer.
>
>> +}
>> +#endif
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c
>> index 850cf4f830c48..be96bbc1b7c04 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c
> [ ... ]
>> @@ -637,6 +640,9 @@ bpf_testmod_test_read(struct file *file, struct kobject *kobj,
>>
>> bpf_testmod_test_struct_ops3();
>>
>> + if (st_ops_trampoline && st_ops_trampoline->test_trampoline)
>> + st_ops_trampoline->test_trampoline(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9999);
>
> [Severity: High]
> Since st_ops_trampoline is never cleared after the map is freed, could this
> result in a use-after-free?
>
> Any subsequent or parallel test in the suite that triggers
> trigger_module_test_read() will invoke bpf_testmod_test_read(), incorrectly
> evaluate st_ops_trampoline as valid, and dereference the freed memory.
>
>> +
>> struct_arg3 = kmalloc((sizeof(struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_3) +
>> sizeof(int)), GFP_KERNEL);
> [ ... ]
>> @@ -1619,6 +1625,10 @@ static int bpf_testmod_ops_init_member(const struct btf_type *t,
>> ((struct bpf_testmod_ops *)kdata)->data = ((struct bpf_testmod_ops *)udata)->data;
>> return 1;
>> }
>> +
>> + if (member->offset == offsetof(struct bpf_testmod_ops, test_trampoline) * 8)
>> + st_ops_trampoline = (struct bpf_testmod_ops *)kdata;
>
> [Severity: High]
> Is it safe to unconditionally assign this global pointer to the map's
> dynamically allocated memory during initialization without setting up a
> cleanup mechanism?
>
> Additionally, this assignment appears to occur without locking at map creation
> time, meaning parallel test runs could race to overwrite this pointer.
You are right. I will fix the use-after-free and race conditions.
Here is the incremental diff based on this v1 patch:
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c
b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c
index be96bbc1b7c0..471e4ed4192e 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c
@@ -589,7 +589,7 @@ noinline int bpf_testmod_trampoline_count_test(void)
return 0;
}
-struct bpf_testmod_ops;
+static DEFINE_MUTEX(st_ops_trampoline_mutex);
static struct bpf_testmod_ops *st_ops_trampoline;
noinline ssize_t
@@ -640,8 +640,10 @@ bpf_testmod_test_read(struct file *file, struct
kobject *kobj,
bpf_testmod_test_struct_ops3();
+ mutex_lock(&st_ops_trampoline_mutex);
if (st_ops_trampoline && st_ops_trampoline->test_trampoline)
st_ops_trampoline->test_trampoline(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9999);
+ mutex_unlock(&st_ops_trampoline_mutex);
struct_arg3 = kmalloc((sizeof(struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_3) +
sizeof(int)), GFP_KERNEL);
@@ -1626,8 +1628,16 @@ static int bpf_testmod_ops_init_member(const
struct btf_type *t,
return 1;
}
- if (member->offset == offsetof(struct bpf_testmod_ops,
test_trampoline) * 8)
+ if (member->offset == offsetof(struct bpf_testmod_ops,
test_trampoline) * 8) {
+ mutex_lock(&st_ops_trampoline_mutex);
+ if (st_ops_trampoline) {
+ pr_err("st_ops_trampoline has already been
registered\n");
+ mutex_unlock(&st_ops_trampoline_mutex);
+ return -EEXIST;
+ }
st_ops_trampoline = (struct bpf_testmod_ops *)kdata;
+ mutex_unlock(&st_ops_trampoline_mutex);
+ }
return 0;
}
@@ -1663,6 +1673,10 @@ static int bpf_dummy_reg(void *kdata, struct
bpf_link *link)
static void bpf_dummy_unreg(void *kdata, struct bpf_link *link)
{
+ mutex_lock(&st_ops_trampoline_mutex);
+ if (st_ops_trampoline == (struct bpf_testmod_ops *)kdata)
+ st_ops_trampoline = NULL;
+ mutex_unlock(&st_ops_trampoline_mutex);
}
static int bpf_testmod_test_1(void)
Thanks,
Tiezhu
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1] selftests/bpf: Add test for indirect struct_ops trampoline
2026-08-28 4:27 [PATCH bpf-next v1] selftests/bpf: Add test for indirect struct_ops trampoline Tiezhu Yang
2026-08-28 4:36 ` sashiko-bot
@ 2026-08-28 5:29 ` bot+bpf-ci
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: bot+bpf-ci @ 2026-08-28 5:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: yangtiezhu, ast, daniel, andrii, eddyz87, memxor, martin.lau,
song, yonghong.song, jolsa, emil, ihor.solodrai
Cc: loongarch, bpf, linux-kernel, ast, andrii, daniel, martin.lau,
eddyz87, yonghong.song, clm, ihor.solodrai
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3214 bytes --]
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_struct_ops_trampoline.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_struct_ops_trampoline.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000000..5a21aedd02fc5
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_struct_ops_trampoline.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +#include <test_progs.h>
> +#include "struct_ops_trampoline.skel.h"
A subsystem pattern flags this as potentially concerning: the new
standalone prog_tests file plus a new progs file are added to cover a
9-argument struct_ops callback whose last argument is stack-passed.
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_arena.c already exercises
this shape via bpf_testmod_ops3.test_arena_stack, whose declaration in
bpf_testmod.h carries the comment "enough leading args to force @ptr onto
the stack on x86 and arm64", and test_arena_stack_cb() already pins the
slot layout with argument checks before using ctx[8]. That test is driven
from prog_tests/test_struct_ops_arena.c in the same directory.
The plausible reason for a separate file is that the arena test is gated
to __x86_64__ || __aarch64__ and needs arena support, which LoongArch and
RISC-V lack.
Could a plain (non-arena) >8-argument member on bpf_testmod_ops3 plus a
new case in test_struct_ops_arena.c or test_struct_ops_multi_args.c have
avoided a new test binary?
[ ... ]
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_trampoline.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_trampoline.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000000..b0fc19a2a0c53
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_trampoline.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +#include <vmlinux.h>
> +#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
> +#include "../test_kmods/bpf_testmod.h"
> +#include "bpf_misc.h"
This isn't a bug, but could the bpf_misc.h include be dropped? The
program has no __failure/__success/__msg/__retval/__sink/__arch_*
annotation, unlike progs/struct_ops_multi_args.c which includes the same
header and does use __failure __msg(...).
[ ... ]
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c
> index 850cf4f830c48..be96bbc1b7c04 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c
> @@ -589,6 +589,9 @@ noinline int bpf_testmod_trampoline_count_test(void)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +struct bpf_testmod_ops;
> +static struct bpf_testmod_ops *st_ops_trampoline;
This isn't a bug, but does the struct bpf_testmod_ops forward declaration
add anything here? bpf_testmod.c already includes "bpf_testmod.h" at the
top, which defines the struct completely, and the dereference below at
st_ops_trampoline->test_trampoline requires the complete type. The
neighbouring static struct bpf_testmod_ops3 *st_ops3 carries no such
forward declaration.
[ ... ]
---
AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug.
See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md
CI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/33142391368
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2026-08-28 9:12 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2026-08-28 4:27 [PATCH bpf-next v1] selftests/bpf: Add test for indirect struct_ops trampoline Tiezhu Yang
2026-08-28 4:36 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-28 9:12 ` Tiezhu Yang
2026-08-28 5:29 ` bot+bpf-ci
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.