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 9D9DE31AABC for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2026 04:42:21 +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=1786941742; cv=none; b=Ha/RRpUtdbW1VySOkZairKSQhD14s6sZY2yLGPyOw06swSD8vEFoz2+/M83LN+Tu/E5C+KC+W1oLNCr18yrJ4HFcSqxHf7fPfNx+kwMsusL74pXT67CP+Xzb33Pena4x8bNJE1uRQ5vHqRVcizKPcJVob1xYeSnbXdxYB8mNkFQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1786941742; c=relaxed/simple; bh=7B3yoABiPB5ruEvyYHTbdmPMIkIOakI6JOV+mZ2uz6o=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=NVB671HLCs6yRh1KQJYLk1EUnHAmtwDrD7eNz0GjbpTJy+30FrG44a8uhR5x298dTWFRzZYmpiTlB9U7cuziT1vXcZAazU3RX5w5pXeJZd4cZZHnHWwkGOThxPaxM2Wtkx19CkxMJBB4myUdktjS3gNjJPxITIgIKzBUjOKGCLc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=C7/H++vX; 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="C7/H++vX" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 152F31F00A3A; Mon, 17 Aug 2026 04:42:21 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1786941741; bh=rpA241MOQkUnX3zzS7U3R/Wde3p9e96Is6UTdI80MZE=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=C7/H++vXrEMmioJ2xiifI+K3QZvUK0k/Zpi8S/MVd26jUsjxJJq/e2lOKBabsBPKI 1CNKHIYPo0XgBtIKRo1zSQW+d+7uurbJVr1PyakGYNYtIif3pG4oUdGtgFb7ics8ba BjSD1VUT1jfWrY0wPTc1dqqv+D45dG65+9X1tt9LPUTbMMPq9fPzHqm3hXn5XrE3Jm oI6n5aPPBFDsA+0qhqRJ1OS3YnicWEddl0F1qWTdK4ip4rIDjMJUlyruQ0bcAEX8Gr 7RctEsJJYWdq6pLcCmaj4YCzlB50sujatb7D+ZF7bjldpe8pLn/sP2igoQxPp6LQYy aJ45b5XJQsWow== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v6 09/10] selftests/bpf: Add inline-asm and subprog tests for R0:R2 returns Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Yonghong Song" Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260817042227.2296079-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev> References: <20260817042141.2286086-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev> <20260817042227.2296079-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2026 04:42:20 +0000 Message-Id: <20260817044221.152F31F00A3A@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 test `aggregate_ret_kfunc_too_big_fail` is incorrectly restr= icted to only run on x86_64 and arm64 architectures. -- --- Patch [9]: [PATCH bpf-next v6 09/10] selftests/bpf: Add inline-asm and = subprog tests for R0:R2 returns --- commit b44fbeb59afa99f6be0f33037220d124e0fb4e12 Author: Yonghong Song selftests/bpf: Add inline-asm and subprog tests for R0:R2 returns This commit adds BPF inline-assembly tests to cover BPF-to-BPF returns, kfu= nc calls, backtracking, and liveness for functions returning values in the R0:= R2 register pair. It also includes an extension test to ensure a function retu= rning R0:R2 cannot be replaced. > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/aggregate_ret_kfunc.c b/to= ols/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/aggregate_ret_kfunc.c > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000000000..c23b4beb1773c > --- /dev/null > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/aggregate_ret_kfunc.c [ ... ] > +/* > + * A return value larger than 16 bytes does not fit in R0:R2 and is reje= cted by > + * btf_distill_func_proto(), before the KF_FASTCALL and JIT-capability c= hecks, > + * so this behaves the same on every architecture. > + */ > +SEC("tc") > +__arch_x86_64 __arch_arm64 [Severity: Medium] Are these architecture restriction tags intended here? The comment right above mentions that this test behaves the same on every architecture, but the __arch_x86_64 and __arch_arm64 tags artificially limit aggregate_ret_kfunc_too_big_fail() to only run on those two architectures, which prevents the test from running on others. > +__failure __msg("The function bpf_kfunc_call_test_ret_big return type ST= RUCT is unsupported") > +__naked int aggregate_ret_kfunc_too_big_fail(void) > +{ > + asm volatile ( > + "call %[bpf_kfunc_call_test_ret_big];" > + "r0 =3D 0;" > + "exit;" > + : > + : __imm(bpf_kfunc_call_test_ret_big) > + : __clobber_all); > +} --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260817042141.2286= 086-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev?part=3D9