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 4FD5A32573F for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2026 13:41:00 +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=1780494061; cv=none; b=QdbZmLYgB/nomRTx5VPAKt8CSx0YTbZJKaahQLtdpeYm/MQTd8ylL+4SiSAZBxSJ/pDvbxv4JOeVZQc711rPMmm6Eb9/wF1FLsXj/Ys1SqW8Qexzcou4o8YZRp7H4BSHqiinvrKEP+RJUII+s/2JmzHICXwyGbi8GeD1eLd3iB0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1780494061; c=relaxed/simple; bh=cO86uRMiUmt5TGTEwbu1Lbs1mm93/+uNvrjze3ldqMs=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=koBa9pTRvrZoXlH48ybLzEmtbzBJIewD9Y2XB6Wbbp9U0AlOixlNMMDhbQJa1mTQcchFOIH/ulgOtoxoO9fK45rNT40G7ak33fSlO/bOh9ZpjPgWI6olCsiXWpfgl42uRTOKQmrKQew+S5JaS2o0yDtUO6dBhZQJT0CFDjcpDLc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=SM5GaNB2; 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="SM5GaNB2" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D02E71F00893; Wed, 3 Jun 2026 13:40:59 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1780494060; bh=muUlEMJmgGH/rQGcXOfVz1jKz4CF8oU8LRiXalgLanE=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=SM5GaNB2N/9enyFCUHJQiqpix4Rhmq6FRh0RmMel/lMr0os0/reNerDZa4PHXQFNg jYma42RxsahtqW/vstTHxOCgIPBdNQFuS6dlhIuwnzR++0XqHr8s4GnavjWGroyLeY S0uFU0t87Q7DvWKTLYmfIQEfegFjEqkjjPHOwlziSEIgVnHRKPHc0fbPKWF9+IEz+n qBnItlADv4ramJC0pb2mny+e6/INIx/JuBIloHMNy2rh79v1ZUamuJuRcVyymudga4 YQAZqbXCI1oyRmikm/0ifHAJUHJ2Mj5/+fpn6ww10ckNIa6wmkv8NAtHho/SIHDlRs VdKP/B0Gyg2oQ== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCHv7 bpf-next 21/29] selftests/bpf: Add tracing multi skel/pattern/ids attach tests Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Jiri Olsa" Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260603110554.29590-22-jolsa@kernel.org> References: <20260603110554.29590-22-jolsa@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2026 13:40:59 +0000 Message-Id: <20260603134059.D02E71F00893@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 introduces tests using new libbpf APIs and section defini= tions (`bpf_program__attach_tracing_multi`, `struct bpf_tracing_multi_opts`= , `fentry.multi`) that are not present in the tree. -- commit 51532d297dcd0ba4ad28dece86396b88a934e780 Author: Jiri Olsa Subject: selftests/bpf: Add tracing multi skel/pattern/ids attach tests Adding tests for tracing_multi link attachment via all possible libbpf apis - skeleton, function pattern and btf ids. > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tracing_multi.c b/too= ls/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tracing_multi.c > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000000000..f333b2514b345 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tracing_multi.c [ ... ] > +static void test_link_api_pattern(void) > +{ > + struct tracing_multi *skel; > + > + skel =3D tracing_multi__open_and_load(); > + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "tracing_multi__open_and_load")) > + return; > + > + skel->bss->pid =3D getpid(); > + > + skel->links.test_fentry =3D bpf_program__attach_tracing_multi(skel->pro= gs.test_fentry, > + "bpf_fentry_test*", NULL); [Severity: Low] Is the bpf_program__attach_tracing_multi() function implemented in the tree? I couldn't find its definition in the libbpf headers, which might cause a build failure when compiling the selftests. [ ... ] > +static void test_link_api_ids(void) > +{ > + LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_tracing_multi_opts, opts); [Severity: Low] Does struct bpf_tracing_multi_opts exist in the current libbpf headers? This instantiation seems to rely on a structure that is missing from the tr= ee. [ ... ] > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tracing_multi_attach.c b/t= ools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tracing_multi_attach.c > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000000000..332d0a423a430 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tracing_multi_attach.c [ ... ] > +__u64 test_result_fentry =3D 0; > +__u64 test_result_fexit =3D 0; > + > +SEC("fentry.multi/bpf_fentry_test*") > +int BPF_PROG(test_fentry) [Severity: Low] Is the fentry.multi section prefix supported by the current version of libbpf? Using an unrecognized section might cause libbpf to fail when loadi= ng the object. --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260603110554.2959= 0-22-jolsa@kernel.org?part=3D1