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 D3E874FC8E9 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2026 21:26:26 +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=1790371590; cv=none; b=O1N5mDn2BCEHd5da2uLkpy7zYBKGU2MldLlrvdCE9Qya2+r6xOntKdHAmLdRKs9nIpS0ZlC+xuZto7QDIzcNbFlQyqvF9BTLzXfqe7KlnW2KCtZR+ftrsNJuIqZzTWcmBFPDRsI5K2h9r+JMlPib+As5YGYHSXZh1qMeX46W9QQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790371590; c=relaxed/simple; bh=uz3lUFp7kYniE/rWMaF91uYbFNGNa36W1sXktApW/O4=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=XRmIGNpkUBIEzYHJlyETODSEhiCtGWmNLyMfjvFkW1ZrQmGNYzOgPOFH5+dDvwE9RVBrP9Aw+XBa5o6VY3zv34xjNupisLNY/7jnP756vDlA2vYqDr4OaUgneOUiFyR4+f4ot1mjtXk0zzxTBXySj/IGYzU2Mfhav1dEaILjnmg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=Iy2G7HOX; 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="Iy2G7HOX" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DF3451F000FF; Fri, 25 Sep 2026 21:26:25 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1790371586; bh=RMCE+1/nRYgMOi9pRuQGzSFdjb5UWMkfItnIwtl5wbU=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=Iy2G7HOX/s35wanVynR6C0lX+dAGdALpW0BWlj8AyIFHrSm3AekSH5I35udFYcHSz o3nPueCDRpxyskzEb35PvwVaUwwQOEbWQ2rJjRAWXlGEGsym8rcSqh8SOFCIE9++fr ujZBT8jXvAUBiTcoW1msGBF6gxLyd6qlrX+yS9c5HQR+nb7iylJTUNN+zKoBi0G4Fa yK/HA3ctsY7GrwnpuE447OnMaeHRGCvxoirGpaWw8egggMDSfXO86UnMLkxKG9Y3cV Q9ZVs/iTvtcT3L5W+/kzQr2yOZZyOgIe/HjNCgBnN9AEGn+ZfReZIBvU6gd9f/imoc EU9Nwaes62Rxg== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1 08/12] bpf: Check subprog dynptr arguments in the common path Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Amery Hung" Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260925211256.1834061-9-ameryhung@gmail.com> References: <20260925211256.1834061-1-ameryhung@gmail.com> <20260925211256.1834061-9-ameryhung@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2026 21:26:25 +0000 Message-Id: <20260925212625.DF3451F000FF@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] bpf: multi-line comment violates BPF subsystem formatting style -- commit 45344ee9671457679fb9b5565dcee5c8036d67b0 Author: Amery Hung bpf: Check subprog dynptr arguments in the common path This commit updates the verifier to check subprog and helper/kfunc dynptr arguments through the common check_func_arg() path. It also modifies a selftest to ensure both Clang and GCC exercise the intended register-type mismatch correctly. > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/dynptr_fail.c b/tools/test= ing/selftests/bpf/progs/dynptr_fail.c > index 9418dfe4d7b7f..148cf44173221 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/dynptr_fail.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/dynptr_fail.c [ ... ] > SEC("?raw_tp") > -__failure __msg("R1 expected pointer to stack or const struct bpf_dynptr= ") > +__failure __msg("R1 type=3Dtrusted_ptr_ expected=3Dfp, dynptr_ptr") > int test_dynptr_reg_type(void *ctx) > { > - struct task_struct *current =3D NULL; > - /* R1 should be holding a PTR_TO_BTF_ID, so this shouldn't be a > - * reg->type that can be passed to a function accepting a > - * ARG_PTR_TO_DYNPTR | MEM_RDONLY. process_dynptr_func() should catch > - * this. > + struct task_struct *current =3D bpf_get_current_task_btf(); > + /* R1 holds a PTR_TO_BTF_ID, which cannot be passed to a function > + * accepting ARG_PTR_TO_DYNPTR | MEM_RDONLY. [Severity: Low] This isn't a bug, but the BPF subsystem follows the modern kernel multi-line comment style where the opening /* must be on its own line. Should this comment block be updated to match the required formatting? > */ > global_call_bpf_dynptr((const struct bpf_dynptr *)current); > return 0; --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260925211256.1834= 061-1-ameryhung@gmail.com?part=3D8