Re: [PATCH v2 07/13] selftests: bpf: Add ASAN support for libarena selftests

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

On Tue Jan 27, 2026 at 1:38 PM 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 5b8d8b94323e..f63324a1cdde 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 = strstr(name, "_asan");
>
> This isn't a bug, but the comment mentions strlen and compile-time length
> calculation, while the actual code uses strstr(). Should the comment be
> updated to match the implementation?
>

Ack, will update.

>> +
>> +	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/21409286496
>
> AI-authorship-score: low
> AI-authorship-explanation: Code follows standard kernel patterns with a comment/code mismatch typical of iterative human development rather than AI generation.
> issues-found: 1
> issue-severity-score: low
> issue-severity-explanation: Minor documentation issue where comment mentions strlen and compile-time calculation but code uses strstr; does not affect functionality.