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 3FE1117A2FB for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2026 13:35:33 +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=1785764134; cv=none; b=QXRvCJTv2zB5//c6i74ZK8o1J9KnLLo3BMUu4cWuw0Xieny8y7fzZaa3K/BpvxYMjq3eG/4y0irXlZA4kp2GXQfHpG8b0KJ3sq5rSPFmOghKnvOAz45pgkDP7QyEyDX6x4HiamnZFBX6NI1giIBicdnzX+dxS4aTRJ646qNLGTU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785764134; c=relaxed/simple; bh=jDcWkYATquljf8kqSzc0Z2GUfra2TKrTR67BEh/TX74=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=eq7rggRnEOPMuBi363fx/5DSDC0t8wE3LDxICcJWm/wR++VZHyWRz9jKt58pJOywZrKruUcxt5NruqzX16HF9casjStppD3/z6Hq8OOHZTAZzPI1h17yp0jp9d71tLgatJeakAH9ZsccWFsngaTcnkQSf/xG6iaeAy9frAaudAQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=EbcnJrKE; 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="EbcnJrKE" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BC3051F000E9; Mon, 3 Aug 2026 13:35:32 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1785764132; bh=xMPzUUnaXWdj8lVbmr/iwpiGLvbEz5nwDipNZtE91hg=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=EbcnJrKE1J5T2cUWwUXQOO564uj84SQYTH3b6sVDQPl3i08mrPj6CKwpivusSxPIB 2hZzug6kxlDTw0edhyh1BZy1fUUQNtCspelzRQ6XjuDt9if77agkknY3rpa6/3rSjM LBBP4+sRNJLZ7Yzk945HN2MjADT0YrsvT/IeJikLFYB0q6ulwJ6umPwMS4lxYNtSXA IDSsS3r5dVTmZEHoz14Duioumd7tUPxFK2Z1jQncP8By+Is8AxqPbHydgYTbVuvnmP DucRLOt8PutLe0VfeyvvmMWqEg+xmv0RqLGfSzmW07dK+jZxlAYVuhkcGtaCE6z1Ef xeac3btrQHfJw== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 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: <20260803125115.2264733-6-memxor@gmail.com> References: <20260803125115.2264733-1-memxor@gmail.com> <20260803125115.2264733-6-memxor@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2026 13:35:32 +0000 Message-Id: <20260803133532.BC3051F000E9@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` test incorrectly wraps its failure-inducin= g logic in an `#if defined(__BPF_FEATURE_ADDR_SPACE_CAST)` block, which cau= ses the test to falsely fail on compilers without this feature. -- --- Patch [5]: [PATCH bpf-next v3 5/9] selftests/bpf: Add kfunc __arena and= __arena_nullable argument tests --- commit b62ba0a2046a4e44e0da5d972133d046f475c161 Author: Tejun Heo selftests/bpf: Add kfunc __arena and __arena_nullable argument tests This commit adds arena-argument kfuncs to bpf_testmod and a corresponding suite of BPF programs to test various argument forms and rebase semantics. The tests are intended to run on x86-64 where JIT support exists. > 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 [Severity: Medium] Will this test incorrectly fail on toolchains without __BPF_FEATURE_ADDR_SPACE_CAST? When the feature is missing, the #if block evaluates to false, leaving an empty program that simply returns 0. The BPF verifier will accept this empty program, but because the test is annotated with __failure __msg(...), the test harness expects the verifier to reject it. Since verification succeeds in this case, does this cause the test harness = to flag it as a spurious test failure during CI or user builds? > + return 0; > +} > + > +char _license[] SEC("license") =3D "GPL"; --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260803125115.2264= 733-1-memxor@gmail.com?part=3D5