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 BBF49413621 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2026 14:50:19 +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=1781103020; cv=none; b=XjbN6W/uZuAPcYgFAn/c3lZhFH6wDhTwsiqnzNXph0oZLZ3F/PFvw9Raulf8sMZiS9LsdLH8YFvlHnr5atN41NPp8E9ckinpBNZhQh7oPESq0V++V3rLwVpgd462Hs/ol/E/8JRt5UtsnEiQi/oaop7pd4N6JWlRA+EIWAqZOyQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1781103020; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Ran0zMpRXsJRyuTK86wJkUePRHg2E99dkxUquH/arqI=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=MjsLYChN1nvG84u/kDIwMgkRwJOmOS8PeziQ/xxnwL+jvSJMyE6JLaC/GfebPz66BULTgu48Zi/oc/TdF4XKzKusKViifgMnTsWab5tEMyb2Ku7Rb+mW9mzfpNL/a6eWASyDunCvDn+JAon9P3OT4xyKsFcOqsiIvhRKITUqOpE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=kQRaUz/L; 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="kQRaUz/L" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7F4791F00893; Wed, 10 Jun 2026 14:50:19 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1781103019; bh=2Jz2u5Ml/pbdzPc5ikrZdMw8YQdKpulrZuRO3ZRUnrE=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=kQRaUz/L+OW84I8dPqYP6TtX4NtKnWSkpzwcpflB6FXQHttRrbzUniPDV93BbBwmy 0SQiuHBeX75Lf7pIX8aGmlMQXbz4DJn3CrYLwo9y5FIpLq3dx/tVInUmK3uVeFy3cy isINtw2axx9xy5c0riOKdHDbhuJQZoapgpUNmW4yhb+TKw8Wnwm94+AB1z3RSY1/Eg tXCZ4/8b7ODy7bxl2uv1vV/vzmrVLOOGKEY7wSjmDrN+xHJbyojwjDJNtly8H0kK2S Py7Mw5kEEWqcULwtdKW051wfi2UI+wSmMQU1BV12WD+LwXrLu9QkgX8ayGiCq99AEz NtBtUzaZlvIRQ== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 bpf-next 3/6] libbpf: Add path_fd to struct bpf_link_create_opts Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Jiri Olsa" Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260610143627.804790-4-jolsa@kernel.org> References: <20260610143627.804790-4-jolsa@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 14:50:18 +0000 Message-Id: <20260610145019.7F4791F00893@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] Compilation fails due to missing `path_fd` in the `uprobe_multi` UA= PI struct. -- commit c73ec6f8d6c5a6bb4c8a75f70c333cac0d6d30d4 Author: Jiri Olsa libbpf: Add path_fd to struct bpf_link_create_opts This commit adds the path_fd field to struct bpf_link_create_opts for uprobe_multi. It passes this new field through the kernel attribute interfa= ce. > diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c > index f37e3416f61a5..96819c082c772 100644 > --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c > +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c > @@ -842,6 +842,7 @@ int bpf_link_create(int prog_fd, int target_fd, > attr.link_create.uprobe_multi.ref_ctr_offsets =3D ptr_to_u64(OPTS_GET(= opts, uprobe_multi.ref_ctr_offsets, 0)); > attr.link_create.uprobe_multi.cookies =3D ptr_to_u64(OPTS_GET(opts, up= robe_multi.cookies, 0)); > attr.link_create.uprobe_multi.pid =3D OPTS_GET(opts, uprobe_multi.pid,= 0); > + attr.link_create.uprobe_multi.path_fd =3D OPTS_GET(opts, uprobe_multi.= path_fd, 0); [Severity: Low] Will this assignment cause a build failure? Looking at the UAPI header in tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h, the uprobe_multi struct inside union bpf_attr doesn't appear to have a path_fd member: struct { __aligned_u64 path; __aligned_u64 offsets; __aligned_u64 ref_ctr_offsets; __aligned_u64 cookies; __u32 cnt; __u32 flags; __u32 pid; } uprobe_multi; Should the path_fd member be added to the UAPI bpf_attr union as well? > if (!OPTS_ZEROED(opts, uprobe_multi)) > return libbpf_err(-EINVAL); > break; --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260610143627.8047= 90-4-jolsa@kernel.org?part=3D1