Re: [PATCH bpf-next] selftests/bpf: Replace %pK output with 0

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Low] Incorrect replacement of `%pK` with padded format specifier `%8d` for UDP sockets causes a mismatch with native `/proc/net/` output.
--

commit c1f7209e53e018927a70341e583a110e2a63d48e
Author: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>

selftests/bpf: Replace %pK output with 0

This commit replaces the %pK format modifier with 0 in BPF iterator tests to
match a recent change in the networking subsystem. The socket pointers are
removed from the output formatting to align with native /proc/net/ interfaces.

> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_iter_udp4.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_iter_udp4.c
> index 23b2aa2604de2..9b789f09f1462 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_iter_udp4.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_iter_udp4.c
> @@ -57,13 +57,13 @@ int dump_udp4(struct bpf_iter__udp *ctx)
>  	BPF_SEQ_PRINTF(seq, "%5d: %08X:%04X %08X:%04X ",
>  		       ctx->bucket, src, srcp, dest, destp);
>  
> -	BPF_SEQ_PRINTF(seq, "%02X %08X:%08X %02X:%08lX %08X %5u %8d %lu %d %pK %u\n",
> +	BPF_SEQ_PRINTF(seq, "%02X %08X:%08X %02X:%08lX %08X %5u %8d %lu %d %8d %u\n",

[Severity: Low]
Does this %8d format incorrectly pad the 0 with spaces?

The networking subsystem replaced %pK with a literal 0, but replacing it with
%8d here in dump_udp4() causes a mismatch with the native /proc/net/ output.
Since BPF iterators are designed as exact drop-in replacements, could this
mismatch break parsers that rely on strict spacing?

[ ... ]

> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_iter_udp6.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_iter_udp6.c
> index c48b05aa2a4b2..9766eff7069ff 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_iter_udp6.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_iter_udp6.c
> @@ -65,13 +65,13 @@ int dump_udp6(struct bpf_iter__udp *ctx)
>  		       dest->s6_addr32[0], dest->s6_addr32[1],
>  		       dest->s6_addr32[2], dest->s6_addr32[3], destp);
>  
> -	BPF_SEQ_PRINTF(seq, "%02X %08X:%08X %02X:%08lX %08X %5u %8d %lu %d %pK %u\n",
> +	BPF_SEQ_PRINTF(seq, "%02X %08X:%08X %02X:%08lX %08X %5u %8d %lu %d %8d %u\n",

[Severity: Low]
Is the use of %8d here in dump_udp6() introducing the same formatting
mismatch as in dump_udp4()?

It seems it should use a literal 0 instead of %8d to exactly match the
networking subsystem's native output format.

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260911145011.kErTVDkS@linutronix.de?part=1