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 CC563372049 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 2026 02:22:12 +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=1792030934; cv=none; b=qJ6MukYTvBSUlLsz6NyQEjWac4bMqbZq1SW0Y1xq3LK5AlRt1eKN8bbQAyIOCWpJykQemO2a8SLTSSuR402ZyBpBr/D/jFin2Qubekbm81kW729wrGzRLWpu3vHwI38qYT6NwG4KEQi9VSnxx1Vkg0mlx2Ue0mEkIs7Kpqs+YZc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1792030934; c=relaxed/simple; bh=wKWoGLlq+4mfh4pvYBkRnt/SbcaIvU/Ynv3IEz5edZs=; h=Message-ID:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type: Date; b=YgtaPR36cbPhMZ/V48mmDDlfeKbyEm3ZybpyOwBTnM7TdoFf091uyQNcrwj2xKNeIGKr9o5ZzMVThaKBWmwFwQOPXP7vmUbc8Qv5emdNvkkC5FnewvmsusfGnymMr8ZRvMZphWwebAnXG+w5coi6JBq2oaduA+FgpNLIw+WaXzg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=mUiub0ku; 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="mUiub0ku" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1F0801F000C4; Thu, 15 Oct 2026 02:22:12 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1792030932; bh=wKWoGLlq+4mfh4pvYBkRnt/SbcaIvU/Ynv3IEz5edZs=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=mUiub0kulLjwUmptjOLdAT1uS/dvM9rL9r4uezVRq5m+1tg9mX5lKbt2c5FjlNQzK Rdj2T7rpYFgQ0dhf9gS8zbjZ3C1UNiRewX0P3pzPgWXyZGmQ2Ujc1YPMGB1ukxJ7ty nYuWA8qC5ehDufkEfFCVRYqsjKNt6DRGvbPJ05uDjJUdOyvlDEdwrAX15494PjsXUH rdG6PRDAxFySXW0q63x01w5+qKtAqOYmCAxwV1Zp9ybp7mcW9/T+urk9FGR4GDK/0M ddtXufUfT7hWM7F7by3RrWhoBRGrkIrQuRvfK29vLrXuJX81J2jxaBdmfuih49j0SS LGIeO+JeQgIug== Message-ID: From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/3] selftests/bpf: Enable private stack tests for riscv64 Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Chen Pei" Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20261015021238.5657-3-cp0613@linux.alibaba.com> References: <20261015021238.5657-1-cp0613@linux.alibaba.com> <20261015021238.5657-3-cp0613@linux.alibaba.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2026 02:22:11 +0000 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: - [Medium] bpf: Missing enablement for private stack test in verifier_large= _stack.c for riscv64 -- commit 6110b152bad2869b21761f9abd7de948a19afdbf Author: Chen Pei selftests/bpf: Enable private stack tests for riscv64 This commit enables the verifier and struct_ops private-stack tests to run on riscv64 by adding the expected RV64 JITed instruction patterns. > selftests/bpf: Enable private stack tests for riscv64 > > The RV64 JIT now supports the private stack. Allow the existing > verifier and struct_ops private-stack tests to run on riscv64 and add > the expected RV64 JITed instruction patterns. [Severity: Medium] Was the private_stack_two_frames test in verifier_large_stack.c missed in this patch? The commit enables private-stack tests in verifier_private_stack.c and struct_ops_private_stack.c, but verifier_large_stack.c contains a test that explicitly validates the verifier log messages for a 2048-byte large stack (private stack) setup, which is currently restricted to x86_64 and arm64: tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_large_stack.c: __arch_x86_64 __arch_arm64 __success __log_level(4) __msg("stack depth max 2048") __msg("subprog 0 (private_stack_two_frames) main {{.*}} stack 2048") __msg("subprog 1 (priv_stack_frame_2048) static {{.*}} stack 2048") __naked void private_stack_two_frames(void) Since the RV64 JIT now supports the private stack, should __arch_riscv64 be added to this test as well so that the riscv64 architecture receives this large stack test coverage? --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261015021238.5657= -1-cp0613@linux.alibaba.com?part=3D2