Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 15/18] selftests/bpf: Give the 512-byte stack boundary tests a 2 KiB twin

["Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi" <memxor@gmail.com>]

On Thu Sep 24, 2026 at 11:13 AM CEST, bot+bpf-ci wrote:
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_callx_rodata.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_callx_rodata.c
>> index af1f9305da37..e39202902be4 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_callx_rodata.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_callx_rodata.c
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> @@ -589,13 +589,58 @@ static unsigned long use_stack_304(void)
>>  	);
>>  }
>>
>> +
>> +/* Four 480-byte frames, deeper than any budget together with their caller */
>> +__naked __noinline __used
>> +static unsigned long use_stack_480_0(void)
>> +{
>> +	asm volatile (
>> +		"r0 = 0;"
>> +		"*(u64 *)(r10 - 480) = r0;"
>> +		"exit;"
>> +	);
>> +}
>> +
>> +__naked __noinline __used
>> +static unsigned long use_stack_480_1(void)
>> +{
>> +	asm volatile (
>> +		"r0 = 0;"
>> +		"*(u64 *)(r10 - 480) = r0;"
>> +		"call use_stack_480_0;"
>> +		"exit;"
>> +	);
>> +}
>> +
>> +__naked __noinline __used
>> +static unsigned long use_stack_480_2(void)
>> +{
>> +	asm volatile (
>> +		"r0 = 0;"
>> +		"*(u64 *)(r10 - 480) = r0;"
>> +		"call use_stack_480_1;"
>> +		"exit;"
>> +	);
>> +}
>> +
>> +__naked __noinline __used
>> +static unsigned long use_stack_480_3(void)
>> +{
>> +	asm volatile (
>> +		"r0 = 0;"
>> +		"*(u64 *)(r10 - 480) = r0;"
>> +		"call use_stack_480_2;"
>> +		"exit;"
>> +	);
>> +}
>> +
>>  /* stack of all possible callees is accounted */
>>  SEC("socket")
>> -__failure __msg("combined stack size of 2 calls is")
>> +__failure __msg("combined stack size of {{[0-9]+}} calls is")
>>  __naked void callx_rodata_stack_depth(void)
>>  {
>>  	asm volatile (
>> -		FUNC_TABLE2(tbl, ret0, use_stack_304)
>> +		FUNC_TABLE2(tbl, ret0, use_stack_480_3)
>>  		"r0 = 0;"
>>  		"*(u64 *)(r10 - 304) = r0;"
>>  		"call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];"
>> @@ -613,11 +658,11 @@ __naked void callx_rodata_stack_depth(void)
>>
>>  /* stack of a callback that is read from the data is accounted too */
>>  SEC("socket")
>> -__failure __msg("combined stack size of 2 calls is")
>> +__failure __msg("combined stack size of {{[0-9]+}} calls is")
>>  __naked void callx_rodata_callback_stack_depth(void)
>>  {
>>  	asm volatile (
>> -		FUNC_TABLE2(tbl, use_stack_304, ret0)
>> +		FUNC_TABLE2(tbl, use_stack_480_3, ret0)
>>  		"r0 = 0;"
>>  		"*(u64 *)(r10 - 304) = r0;"
>>  		"r6 = tbl_%= ll;"
>
> This isn't a bug, but now that callx_rodata_stack_depth() and
> callx_rodata_callback_stack_depth() both use the use_stack_480_*
> chain, is use_stack_304() still needed in this file?
>
> In verifier_callx.c the function is still used by callx_stack_depth_ok(),
> but in verifier_callx_rodata.c nothing references it anymore. Could it be
> removed along with the extra blank line after it?
>

Dropped the unused use_stack_304() from verifier_callx_rodata.c for v3.

>
> ---
> 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/35976322553