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 CD152367B70 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 2026 05:59:45 +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=1789883987; cv=none; b=OkT/En4l4AjlUen7aOkBwNoGHJvpVuddxF2OGdqykkpFeAf9XyxR0FRI70Od5+7M1A+/my+xH5uY207s2P7QKHKi7qYJ8gSb58HKodItT+MRQ7po70GNcg7KQaziwpb1A0t0azw5wQYoyfMlyjTh5FRnraFxXQ6iJ+AzbELL8dE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789883987; c=relaxed/simple; bh=EKRTUk/g6YlvwL+Dv44EsSKfyGf6UHwBKWYiUs8UMSc=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=mpKDzAUm2NkU4tneeN83Fz1c6rOP4ryxJu6Ib2+ObHZVG8FB5ZYkcu7LmLJpzaHlxKJZWYSnH0mTaEajJugdKPrliNExwstdiNwxPXiPCuw3pS/sk1qbu5zvG/RD/i5Uq5PwLThEWsMzjSFTG7BzcdsKCy/+9vcE9T/cpaaYSIs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=nPeZHocP; 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="nPeZHocP" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3A5E91F000FF; Sun, 20 Sep 2026 05:59:45 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1789883985; bh=ugJ4NWlw4g0A+I8VfOm9wiKtJmXYDQGJVcFT0EdaHrE=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=nPeZHocPKdLYtkHaXQyjAWJIUpvGFIrqz9u9IFlYvqD3DTrmZotz9g/2uUjZnXb5S 6oaTaPQlaqVJTMo5Mj/KfBJrFY0MM/vT+JchVgDXinqO2989fgrjXe3eAOJr2ZcdiN luERDjPB/+9mDvhl710avnM8XarAvnIxpLpAFeXgWWngy0SkC0o0xAN05vr8h+OIFI /8SUOIIEoy5poIEnVvgPGel44NpuSYQKDATxYATsbICFHjFgrFuZWfa3nF1aR7uqwd YaN28e3xYBMZMU9YHXDVrFVU6ylqohCwP1xTat2N1VaZDZPASNKCJI2MtxEba28ZM0 ZkNVVHbX/BGVQ== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 18/20] selftests/bpf: Add an end-to-end .bpf_cleanup exception test Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Yonghong Song" Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260920054358.872840-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev> References: <20260920054225.864535-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev> <20260920054358.872840-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2026 05:59:44 +0000 Message-Id: <20260920055945.3A5E91F000FF@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: - [Low] bpf: multi-line comments violate mandatory subsystem style -- commit f500599d1234044cd45952e76c1ac50f7c35ab78 Author: Yonghong Song selftests/bpf: Add an end-to-end .bpf_cleanup exception test This commit introduces end-to-end tests for the .bpf_cleanup exception handling mechanism. It verifies both successful cleanup paths and various scenarios where the kernel correctly rejects invalid landing pads or unwind behaviors. > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/exceptions_cleanup.c = b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/exceptions_cleanup.c > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000000000..a951045d21355 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/exceptions_cleanup.c [ ... ] > @@ -58,11 +58,11 @@ void test_exceptions_cleanup(void) > + > + /* foo3 throws; every pad runs and the cookie is delivered at entry. */ > + if (test__start_subtest("throw_from_foo3")) > + run(skel, 101, THROW_COOKIE, PADS_FOO3_THREW); > + > + /* foo3 returns 2 ^ 1 =3D=3D 3, so foo2 throws from its own second regi= on; > + * foo3's frame is long gone, so its pad must not run. > + */ [Severity: Low] This isn't a bug, but does this violate the BPF subsystem's multi-line comment style in test_exceptions_cleanup()? The guidelines require the opening /* to be on its own line. > + if (test__start_subtest("throw_from_foo2")) > + run(skel, 2, THROW_COOKIE, PADS_FOO2_THREW); > + > + exceptions_cleanup__destroy(skel); [ ... ] > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/exceptions_cleanup_fail.c = b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/exceptions_cleanup_fail.c > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000000000..db6ac7d8bd6de > --- /dev/null > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/exceptions_cleanup_fail.c [ ... ] > @@ -15,10 +15,10 @@ static __used __noinline void __kfunc_btf_anchor(void) > + bpf_preempt_enable(); > + bpf_unwind_resume(); > +} > + > +/* 1. A subprogram that may unwind, also used as a helper callback: > + * bpf_loop()'s own kernel frame would end the walk before it found a > + * boundary. > + */ [Severity: Low] This isn't a bug, but does this multi-line comment format violate the BPF subsystem style just above throwing_cb()? Similar to the above, the opening /* should be on its own line. It appears several other comments in this file follow this same pattern. > +static int throwing_cb(__u32 idx, void *ctx) > +{ > + bpf_throw(0xbad); > + return 0; --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260920054225.8645= 35-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev?part=3D18