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 6FB5F30567B for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2026 11:34:20 +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=1780486461; cv=none; b=dT1JUo8J8IbDapVflnJR3JmgLLitj4xYV53OFWml3jwCqGA6hfna/hOtk21Ayo6WVvGf1EwlSZdSy/ks53eMV+BFzcR10/Ix48nsxJlPo7cpp9+4c+xD3bUrxuwXF78FD8CSo3bLZw/DQo984zP/ohLDhV1XzOhFgmltnuBJ/BU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1780486461; c=relaxed/simple; bh=QmrJEV6P5HPO7o0DXn+khEI3yOeXc4/HciP5rg3kaxQ=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=Uky8GL/dhvTDfQNosPqNd1Ha/DOV7MNFWwcKUxFSbUYTGuUeEADyiIIJ1uve1buKFlv53QqO5tqhhg0pB32FOCLjtOeeFpfWURjNYtXgu3D8irgD5noX+UKlk9gbxo+ARFr7ZX5cKq4IKE7NJFNWKrc0Y+C27SlEwu2TmyzSHDs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=X+MzYvbx; 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="X+MzYvbx" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D927B1F00893; Wed, 3 Jun 2026 11:34:19 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1780486460; bh=RPmR/PTdpKrtCEQ70poTLVWjCtBXLsJdpdDFDbcwsMA=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=X+MzYvbx4FE5dxR1Umb+BPYpteEBD0QQ23ptlm1N04OlaJ9opuMQm8p8gIEq3ZWO5 PwDV08Sz9juYeK29EZEt58gvH2ZrSrhxLNw6zsDkxE1cL1O8svTkk4YaJtdUi5HmPL U7o7ajMo7CxaVwhRMYhObkQnru3A3pCXSOgf5YTZ/NuSiT/EQYZ+28riTtX0DTsm3/ HnUWEJT7hfLRahBQenyoaW3O3JZyV39Te3BSdEwyn5oC6Vnes8dLVc7KQ1yVQ2fLEP 08Q/FNR30OjYU+ALfy9Fs6nlt+BAtbdFSoH9Pyz62Uv7KFIjjdMNCHPPFiO/Gi8Qwm e5OqcaEMBDPAw== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCHv7 bpf-next 18/29] libbpf: Add bpf_link_create support for tracing_multi link Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Jiri Olsa" Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260603110554.29590-19-jolsa@kernel.org> References: <20260603110554.29590-19-jolsa@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2026 11:34:19 +0000 Message-Id: <20260603113419.D927B1F00893@smtp.kernel.org> 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: - [Low] The patch references undefined UAPI constants and struct fields, ca= using a build failure. -- commit dfbf332632be62321ec615d0d0c35a8d46309172 Author: Jiri Olsa libbpf: Add bpf_link_create support for tracing_multi link This commit adds support for the tracing_multi link in bpf_link_create(). It introduces the tracing_multi record to struct bpf_link_create_opts and maps these new options to the bpf_attr union for the sys_bpf syscall. > diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c > index bc513aa8f4041..f37e3416f61a5 100644 > --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c > +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c [ ... ] > @@ -845,6 +845,15 @@ int bpf_link_create(int prog_fd, int target_fd, > if (!OPTS_ZEROED(opts, uprobe_multi)) > return libbpf_err(-EINVAL); > break; > + case BPF_TRACE_FENTRY_MULTI: > + case BPF_TRACE_FEXIT_MULTI: > + case BPF_TRACE_FSESSION_MULTI: > + attr.link_create.tracing_multi.ids =3D ptr_to_u64(OPTS_GET(opts, traci= ng_multi.ids, 0)); > + attr.link_create.tracing_multi.cookies =3D ptr_to_u64(OPTS_GET(opts, t= racing_multi.cookies, 0)); > + attr.link_create.tracing_multi.cnt =3D OPTS_GET(opts, tracing_multi.cn= t, 0); [Severity: Low] Are the UAPI constants (BPF_TRACE_FENTRY_MULTI, etc.) and the tracing_multi struct within union bpf_attr defined at this point in the tree? It appears this patch relies on UAPI additions to linux/bpf.h that are missing from this specific commit. This causes a build failure in tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c due to undeclared identifiers. Should this commit include the UAPI header updates, or be reordered after the corresponding kernel patch to prevent breaking git bisect? > + if (!OPTS_ZEROED(opts, tracing_multi)) > + return libbpf_err(-EINVAL); > + break; > case BPF_TRACE_RAW_TP: > case BPF_TRACE_FENTRY: > case BPF_TRACE_FEXIT: --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260603110554.2959= 0-19-jolsa@kernel.org?part=3D1