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 3BCCE221739 for ; Sun, 26 Jul 2026 01:41:15 +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=1785030076; cv=none; b=jnSZtfUdoEkI9CrnEcTRlzk9zkZCmiGf+dIA2XrjyJvdzMPDX+P6dm0ipquKQodvD4Sa+dlIpkAAQyIjkU1XL+opkgyPqakDovdIgjVoswdsg1qibeJs0MEvRjriFwtDrUwB/6o4lD65jkI9rbOCW2rj4LHx5imdNdMPJbmc/7U= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785030076; c=relaxed/simple; bh=N3hVz/fFcYyRqdX0d6Seoa/zuZM18bNANix/XFfpDdo=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=AA386C0n4SGDxekwu3cx440hRJnkPT8S7FWwnb/fDTF861L3qt4MfVcVglPQzPlvGQjUzqT80UFNR1I6/D6lBwago5HIzaYFBd8VwEZWwqVN9OQodV9fZp1Nqm1nqliBcr9qEEvbwUIQcERAGd0I+YrYnajP0zYwF5spgxtS4tI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=hOj3InPw; 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="hOj3InPw" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A795D1F000E9; Sun, 26 Jul 2026 01:41:14 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1785030074; bh=HkZYhjd1T2D5Be5qPIpMdu6+jHdwxxQzVQ2SFMDNqqc=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=hOj3InPwnyQTkSizHUIjM+5fZ87YQrJJ2ep1gwXANw/nnm7w7WFsJfqBjBpRR2cau zv09St0f2nOzpg5kiGC6V4eyI4vmKc3WTns7D8fDVe5PG9eBgHXEIu9ALB5rVFVGuV 6taGY9m6BwZLk/TrhfSHc7YT/zkVKiPkhLAzGwEtCEuPiTJ4aSK3G9KNuYzTBmxNwJ 24B0xEjKyWYM1n7u1mVTGmzmoG1tF1TBBr0xKs9K7C2exHtkDqfncDlNjQJ8Ct6SYy LN529Hxt00z3cY8WBf8wmTbWDfg/1BybsDMojaIu11w9hbqB/SjBagblCPNLaW0Ixz TGINE5hmJbjaQ== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 5/9] selftests/bpf: Add kfunc __arena and __arena_nullable argument tests Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi" Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260726013105.3689867-6-memxor@gmail.com> References: <20260726013105.3689867-1-memxor@gmail.com> <20260726013105.3689867-6-memxor@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2026 01:41:14 +0000 Message-Id: <20260726014114.A795D1F000E9@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: - [Medium] The `arena_arg_stack` failure test is conditionally compiled out= on compilers missing `__BPF_FEATURE_ADDR_SPACE_CAST`, causing a false test= suite failure. -- --- Patch [5]: [PATCH bpf-next v2 5/9] selftests/bpf: Add kfunc __arena and= __arena_nullable argument tests --- commit b7abeb2e41481276f90bb3144448d08e3c6e2c96 Author: Tejun Heo selftests/bpf: Add kfunc __arena and __arena_nullable argument tests This commit adds kfunc arena argument tests to bpf_testmod to exercise argument rebasing, various accepted argument forms, and verifier rejections. > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/arena_kfunc.c b/tools/test= ing/selftests/bpf/progs/arena_kfunc.c > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000000000..e7250c5197ab4 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/arena_kfunc.c [ ... ] > +SEC("syscall") > +__arch_x86_64 > +__failure __msg("arena pointer cannot be a stack argument") > +int arena_arg_stack(void *ctx) > +{ > +#if defined(__BPF_FEATURE_ADDR_SPACE_CAST) > + bpf_arena_alloc_pages(&arena, NULL, 1, NUMA_NO_NODE, 0); > + bpf_kfunc_arena_stack_arg_test(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, (u64 *)1); > +#endif > + return 0; > +} [Severity: Medium] Does this conditional compilation cause the test suite to fail on older compilers missing __BPF_FEATURE_ADDR_SPACE_CAST? Because this test is marked with __failure, the test runner expects the verifier to reject it. If the macro is not defined, the program compiles to just return 0. The verifier will successfully load the empty program, causing the test runner to report a failure because the expected rejection did not occur. --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260726013105.3689= 867-1-memxor@gmail.com?part=3D5