From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi" <memxor@gmail.com>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf v7 09/10] selftests/bpf: Check callback map value lock identity
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2026 23:46:06 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260917234606.B81761F000FF@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260917233222.2542500-10-memxor@gmail.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] bpf: bisectability breakage in cb_refs test
--
commit 03ec1406cdaeb656afadd3849c93ff403c3610cb
Author: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
selftests/bpf: Check callback map value lock identity
This commit adds a verifier test to ensure callback map value lock identities
are correctly verified, even across nested inner-map lookups. It also extends
the spin_lock failure tests and updates an existing cb_refs test expectation.
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/cb_refs.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/cb_refs.c
> index 78566b817fd70..490e15e7126d9 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/cb_refs.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/cb_refs.c
> @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ struct {
> } cb_refs_tests[] = {
> { "underflow_prog", "release kfunc bpf_kfunc_call_test_release expects referenced PTR_TO_BTF_ID passed to R1" },
> { "leak_prog", "Possibly NULL pointer passed to helper R2" },
> - { "nested_cb", "Unreleased reference id=4 alloc_insn=2" }, /* alloc_insn=2{4,5} */
> + { "nested_cb", "Unreleased reference id=5 alloc_insn=2" }, /* alloc_insn=2{4,5} */
[Severity: Medium]
Does this change introduce a bisectability breakage?
The test expectation for the nested_cb program is updated here to expect
id=5 instead of id=4. This appears to fix a test failure caused by the
previous commit in the series, which added the ID increment for callback
map values in the verifier.
If this test update is delayed to this subsequent commit, the cb_refs
selftests will fail when testing the tree at the intermediate state,
violating the rule that patches should be self-contained and not introduce
regressions.
Should this hunk be squashed into the prior commit that actually changed
the ID generation behavior to preserve git bisectability?
> { "non_cb_transfer_ref", "Unreleased reference id=4 alloc_insn=1" }, /* alloc_insn=1{1,2} */
> };
[ ... ]
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260917233222.2542500-1-memxor@gmail.com?part=9
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-17 23:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-17 23:32 [PATCH bpf v7 00/10] Misc bug fixes - part 5 Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-17 23:32 ` [PATCH bpf v7 01/10] bpf: Make post-verification instruction rewrites killable Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-17 23:32 ` [PATCH bpf v7 02/10] bpf: Preserve packet pointer class displacement in regsafe() Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-17 23:32 ` [PATCH bpf v7 03/10] selftests/bpf: Test packet pointer class displacement pruning Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-17 23:32 ` [PATCH bpf v7 04/10] bpf: Apply CO-RE relocations before subprogram validation Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-17 23:32 ` [PATCH bpf v7 05/10] selftests/bpf: Test early in-kernel CO-RE relocation Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-17 23:32 ` [PATCH bpf v7 06/10] bpf: Restrict CO-RE poisoning to relocatable instructions Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-17 23:32 ` [PATCH bpf v7 07/10] selftests/bpf: Test CO-RE instruction poisoning restrictions Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-17 23:32 ` [PATCH bpf v7 08/10] bpf: Assign lock identity to callback map values Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-17 23:32 ` [PATCH bpf v7 09/10] selftests/bpf: Check callback map value lock identity Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-17 23:46 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-09-17 23:32 ` [PATCH bpf v7 10/10] libbpf: Reject truncated ldimm64 CO-RE relocations Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-18 1:10 ` [PATCH bpf v7 00/10] Misc bug fixes - part 5 patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
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=20260917234606.B81761F000FF@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
/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