Re: [PATCH v10 bpf-next 08/11] libbpf: support llvm-generated indirect jumps

[Anton Protopopov <a.s.protopopov@gmail.com>]

On 25/11/02 07:58PM, Chris Mason wrote:
> On 11/2/25 7:32 PM, Ihor Solodrai wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 11/2/25 1:38 PM, Anton Protopopov wrote:
> >> On 25/11/02 09:13PM, bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org wrote:
>                                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>>
> >>> Does this error message print the correct offset? Since jt is a pointer
> >>> to __u64, the array access jt[i] is at byte offset "sym_off + i * 8",
> >>> not "sym_off + i". All the other error messages in create_jt_map report
> >>> byte offsets and sizes (sym_off, jt_size, sym_off + jt_size), so this
> >>> one should probably be "sym_off + i * jt_entry_size" for consistency.
> >>
> >> Is there a way to run this AI as part of any PR to
> >> kernel-patches/bpf, not only those coming from the mailing list?
> >> Maybe for a selected commit?
> > 
> > Hi Anton,
> > 
> > If you have access to an "agentic" AI coding tool that runs locally,
> > such as Claude Code, you can use our prompts repository [1] with a
> > trigger prompt like this:
> > 
> >   Current directory is the root of a Linux Kernel git repository.
> >   Using the prompt `review/review-core.md` and the prompt directory
> >   `review` do a code review of the top commit in the Linux repository.
> > 
> > The prompts expect the "agent" to be able to read and write files, and
> > execute basic commands such as grep, find, awk and similar.
> > 
> > In principle it's possible to enable the review CI job for arbitrary
> > pull requests, but the tokens are not free so we haven't considered
> > that yet.
> 
> At least for me, it really helps having the reviews on the list.  It
> gives me the chance to see what kinds of bugs AI is flagging correctly
> and where the false positives are.  I do try and fix all the bad reviews
> that people flag, so the comments here are really helpful.
> 
> This isn't meant to discourage people from running reviews locally, I'm
> happy to help get you setup.  But I also don't want to add a barrier to
> contributing code.

Thanks. In my case AI, for the most part, finds real bugs, so it looks to be
helpful and its reviews make sense on the list. If only it could dump more in
one pass, not squeese them one by one :)

> > [1] https://github.com/masoncl/review-prompts 
> > 
> >>
> >> Also, how deterministinc it is?  Will it generate different comments
> >> for a given patch for different runs?
> > 
> > The short answer is no, the answers are not deterministic.
> > 
> > However for typical/obvious bugs you might often get a comment about
> > the same issue worded differently.
> Yeah, recent changes to the prompts have made it better, but for some
> bugs it still wanders off without flagging a percentage of the time.
> 
> Also, sometimes it'll get excited about finding a bug (even if a false
> positive) and skip to the end of the review, so if a patch has multiple
> problems, we might need multiple submissions to see them.  I've been
> working on this as well, but there's still room for improvement.

After all, it just mimics how a real reviewer would behave (excited => skip)

> -chris
>