From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Anastasios Papagiannis" <tasos.papagiannnis@gmail.com>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 5/7] selftests/bpf: Cover trusted-or-null BTF pointer reads
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2026 10:55:59 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260831105559.E8E271F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260831092305.42062-6-tasos.papagiannnis@gmail.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] Tests for atomic RMW operations and BPF_LOAD_ACQ on trusted-or-null pointers are missing, despite the commit message claiming they are verified.
- [Low] Multi-line comment opening '/*' is not on its own line, violating BPF subsystem guidelines.
--
commit a8459550255e4dfc12584cd94a1820a3e538fba1
Author: Anastasios Papagiannis <tasos.papagiannnis@gmail.com>
selftests/bpf: Cover trusted-or-null BTF pointer reads
This commit updates verifier tests for unchecked trusted-or-null BTF pointer
dereferences and adds tests covering scalar reads and chained reads. It also
adds runtime tests to verify that non-NULL reads return the field value while
NULL reads return zero.
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_struct_ops_maybe_null.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_struct_ops_maybe_null.c
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_struct_ops_maybe_null.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_struct_ops_maybe_null.c
> @@ -19,15 +19,15 @@ static void maybe_null(void)
> struct_ops_maybe_null__destroy(skel);
> }
>
> -/* Test that the verifier rejects a program that access a nullable pointer
> - * without a check beforehand.
> +/* Test that the verifier accepts a fault-protected read through a nullable
> + * trusted pointer without an explicit NULL check.
> */
[Severity: Low]
This is not a bug, but does this follow the BPF subsystem comment guidelines?
The guidelines require multi-line comments to have the opening /* on its own
line, rather than keeping the text on the same line as the opening characters.
[ ... ]
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_tp_btf_nullable.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_tp_btf_nullable.c
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_tp_btf_nullable.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_tp_btf_nullable.c
[ ... ]
> +SEC("tp_btf/bpf_testmod_test_nullable_bare_tp")
> +__failure __msg("pointer arithmetic on trusted_ptr_or_null_ prohibited")
> +int BPF_PROG(handle_tp_btf_nullable_arith, struct bpf_testmod_test_read_ctx *nullable_ctx)
> +{
> + asm volatile("%[ctx] += 1" : [ctx] "+r"(nullable_ctx));
> + return nullable_ctx->len;
> +}
[Severity: Medium]
The commit message states that the tests verify that atomic RMW operations
and BPF_LOAD_ACQ accesses remain prohibited. Does this patch actually include
those tests? The test for pointer arithmetic is present here in
handle_tp_btf_nullable_arith(), but there do not seem to be any corresponding
tests for atomic RMW operations or BPF_LOAD_ACQ accesses in this file or
elsewhere in the patch.
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260831092305.42062-1-tasos.papagiannnis@gmail.com?part=5
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-31 10:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-31 9:22 [PATCH bpf-next v3 0/7] bpf: Add user memory access kfuncs for mm_struct Anastasios Papagiannis
2026-08-31 9:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/7] mm: Add copy_remote_mm_str() Anastasios Papagiannis
2026-08-31 9:23 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 2/7] bpf: Add user memory access kfuncs for mm_struct Anastasios Papagiannis
2026-08-31 10:01 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-31 10:43 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-31 9:23 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 3/7] exec: Clear bprm->mm before dropping its reference Anastasios Papagiannis
2026-08-31 10:25 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-31 10:30 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-01 3:19 ` sun jian
2026-09-01 8:56 ` sun jian
2026-08-31 9:23 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 4/7] bpf: Allow reads through trusted-or-null BTF pointers Anastasios Papagiannis
2026-08-31 10:43 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-31 9:23 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 5/7] selftests/bpf: Cover trusted-or-null BTF pointer reads Anastasios Papagiannis
2026-08-31 10:43 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-31 10:55 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-08-31 9:23 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 6/7] bpf: Mark linux_binprm->mm as trusted-or-null Anastasios Papagiannis
2026-08-31 10:43 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-01 3:50 ` sun jian
2026-08-31 9:23 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 7/7] selftests/bpf: Test mm_struct user memory kfuncs with linux_binprm Anastasios Papagiannis
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260831105559.E8E271F000E9@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=tasos.papagiannnis@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox