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 9229D3515F8 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2026 15:09:04 +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=1789139345; cv=none; b=s4uDHPSr+zPrYnNDh5j3uGjZvK10So2JN0rbJ3awR15x9p/kJSgt2aRhTxqtdmNoKMumiXncado4+CWpc352I2F4O8bN1CbX88xnaGbu9nhXSSxIyKKUkiZbZimhEHKQmYggZMigkAnZPvtO54+uhmnzUNAWMjX4ZhQ6f3xYuSY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789139345; c=relaxed/simple; bh=TGVxIFLiDFNk/TaJsCA//rn6/bXLkUsuybmt36cPwqM=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=cfwhjRNV5zRUiNggwGFNX1LoJenhK/oySvAMxDMkgox9cxlKUrZsaBlGHwLcknDwNJF9+axc5NGhHcNVppFPotAsfpE98apibxl3cv9ThMdoXRXCljMXFYs2e0YFSV77+d5r+J1CU51Yea1ioYD4e4/Go0tbXThm4/vVWaWR2Ic= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=L5cQazLH; 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="L5cQazLH" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 44CF61F00898; Fri, 11 Sep 2026 15:09:04 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1789139344; bh=DGCQrSArTmr+zU+Tzkrl9fIqGWxMsjPyYSvw0efrTe0=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=L5cQazLHV63aTH1AsA5fw7nt/a+kputl/JHdP77t00XNkxjJIzaAR3K72WJRhU+va bbgUXKi9a7cUR6oj9t/F3oTmwjeqCkm1fx6KHIZAQLa6YkMZPc0KTgACitmOjYEI0s HkVaNUbN7tFXZ79Okgjn6p/AQPYIvjjsT0Zx/eOOVmdi+RzEHSSnyRfNuU+UP4Bsce XTpuGuxFo7Tn2d5PDKf6bKHuZkZ6277/2yQ9rcyEH9vA7nvng5B+0Gg+ZwHo47X1jx C961605HceLF60gmnx5p+oglZGkfL6Mcx+UO9MNkW/xoXYUgeXvF6NQE8+AUQ8UR4e Rt7sy0/pBx13Q== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 05/14] selftests/bpf: Test skb_ext on cloned skbs Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Jakub Sitnicki" Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260910-bpf-meta-inside-skb-ext-v2-5-0b21e42180b0@cloudflare.com> References: <20260910-bpf-meta-inside-skb-ext-v2-0-0b21e42180b0@cloudflare.com> <20260910-bpf-meta-inside-skb-ext-v2-5-0b21e42180b0@cloudflare.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2026 15:09:03 +0000 Message-Id: <20260911150904.44CF61F00898@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] Missing __msg() macro in __failure verifier tests. -- commit 3dc92388d2fd6ba878aeec16668062f704faf681 Author: Jakub Sitnicki selftests/bpf: Test skb_ext on cloned skbs This commit adds coverage for skb_ext behavior when an skb is cloned, using TC mirred and bpf_clone_redirect(). It tests whether extensions are readable across clones and verifies copy-on-write isolation. [ ... ] > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_skb_ext.c b/tools= /testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_skb_ext.c > index db43f10514001..c2611c9315aa7 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_skb_ext.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_skb_ext.c > @@ -7,6 +7,51 @@ > =20 > __u64 flags; > =20 > +SEC("tc") > +__description("skb_ext slice is invalidated by bpf_clone_redirect") > +__failure [Severity: Medium] Should this test include a __msg("...") macro to verify the exact error string from the verifier? If the test fails to load due to an unrelated verifier error (such as a syntax issue, invalid BTF, or missing kfunc declarations), the test loader merely checks if loading fails for any reason. This can incorrectly report a PASS, hiding regressions in the specific slice invalidation logic it is designed to test. > +int skb_ext_stale_slice_after_clone_redirect(struct __sk_buff *ctx) > +{ > + struct bpf_dynptr meta; > + __u8 *slice; [ ... ] > + bpf_clone_redirect(ctx, 1, 0); > + > + /* Stale: the clone shares the ext block the slice points into. */ > + *slice =3D 0; > + > + return 0; > +} > + > +SEC("tc") > +__description("skb_ext slice is invalidated when ext is re-opened with F= _CREATE") > +__failure [Severity: Medium] Similarly, does this test also need a __msg() macro?=20 Without exact error message string verification, the test infrastructure will pass this test if it fails to load for any reason, rather than verifying the intended failure reason. > +int skb_ext_stale_slice_after_recreate(struct __sk_buff *ctx) > +{ > + struct bpf_dynptr d1, d2; > + __u8 *slice; [ ... ] --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260910-bpf-meta-i= nside-skb-ext-v2-0-0b21e42180b0@cloudflare.com?part=3D5