Re: [PATCH 07/13] selftests: bpf: Add ASAN support for libarena selftests

["Emil Tsalapatis" <emil@etsalapatis.com>]

On Thu Jan 22, 2026 at 11:58 AM EST, bot+bpf-ci wrote:
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/libarena/selftests/selftest.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/libarena/selftests/selftest.c
>> index 2e4c0830fed9..4d7db66e75ed 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/libarena/selftests/selftest.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/libarena/selftests/selftest.c
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> @@ -211,8 +269,17 @@ static void
>>  banner(const char *progpath)
>>  {
>>  	char *name = basename(progpath);
>> +	bool is_asan;
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Check if our BPF programs are ASAN-capable by inspecting the prog name.
>> +	 * Command line arguments are guaranteed to be NULL-terminated, use strlen.
>> +	 * Calculate the hardcoded name's length at compile time.
>> +	 */
>> +	printf("%s\n", name);
>> +	is_asan = strlen(name) > (sizeof("selftest") - 1);
>
> The ASAN detection logic compares against "selftest" (8 chars), but
> the actual binary names are "test_libarena" (13 chars) and
> "test_libarena_asan" (18 chars). Since strlen("test_libarena") > 8
> evaluates to true, the non-ASAN binary will also be detected as
> ASAN-enabled.
>
> Should the comparison be against "test_libarena" instead of "selftest"?
> Or perhaps using strstr(name, "_asan") would be more robust?
>

Ack, test_libarena was initially called "selftest" and was renamed for uniformity.
strstr() is the better idea, will add in the revision.

>> +
>> -	printf("=== %s ===\n", "libarena selftests");
>> +	printf("=== %s %s===\n", "libarena selftests", is_asan ? "(asan) " : "");
>>  }
>
>
> ---
> 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/21256973563