From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-170.mta1.migadu.com (out-170.mta1.migadu.com [95.215.58.170]) (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 261C43955C2 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 2026 17:12:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.170 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1780679556; cv=none; b=uSBj9jXLf91PmNV9EChYH3YuX0or812zXmARj8hmCKwhQKUK3cMD99QwRQ5K01F5rgeq1GHeiwe3RStwP/deHR1lEfXxWkVR/Mjd9stxd1ocrxQgMPBFistUcnBmqavBssGC67ZQkLZAs6DJNmoPB1aVFTY+rduxAh1NAG1DGtg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1780679556; c=relaxed/simple; bh=sCDEb1avU1aD3CbBYvmRE4P68YtLhqktPeNvIuGWuf0=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=MD1tBe6NnLUpCVCgwiByCX4ZoD9Nf8ovfUE8INf2baGbKlXSREnm1i+ZCdnH7PqMRtcE498ESrb1jJhTciGe2yIe7JcqEhVwONsRe0uk83SwcFiVxq7bTyxJXDeIXr6TMtnM/DDP2qRQQHCQSP29Su2gufaUScHP3zrs0v8Pmq4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=dCtByikG; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.170 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="dCtByikG" Message-ID: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1780679550; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=fo8CAIvSkQ5YQSXF3PSHKRep1uY8aHbN5UsGrEEgs5I=; b=dCtByikGv/+S4Y5FuWiFX7lWwnnctUREovpwFT9ossplx/qANYStE2CRm5XJMbfI5GcLZE MLK2q1p2v7w3LXH6YYrcekABZq+VkZbmzYdjx6jOWkCxMWMwwQRl1juFedszxR+KK5b3lT p/Kow6ls0Wxyw9EdqL0/1VoKOXwOoo0= Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 10:12:14 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: BPF CI for Stable To: Shung-Hsi Yu , bpf@vger.kernel.org, Andrii Nakryiko Cc: Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , Eduard Zingerman , Paul Chaignon References: Content-Language: en-US X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Ihor Solodrai In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT On 6/5/26 12:45 AM, Shung-Hsi Yu wrote: > Hi, > > Following up on the LSF/MM/BPF 2026 session "BPF in Stable Kernels, an > Update"[1]. Since the event, 6.1 coverage has also been added[2] (thanks > to Paul). With a collaborator on my side, it seem like a good time to > ask: > > Is it possible to get BPF CI for stable in its own repository under a > GitHub organization (e.g. libbpf/stable-bpf-ci)? Hi Shung-Hsi, I think a better home for the BPF CI targeting stable kernels is kernel-patches org [1] for a couple of reasons. First, repos in the kernel-patches org have access to hardware - generic runners provided by Meta and s390x runners provided by IBM. Second reason is that this org hosts source of truth repos for most of BPF CI code, even though a big chunk of it lives in libbpf/ci. Let me know if this makes sense, and I'll create a new repository and grant you write permissions there. > > Currently it lives as a personal repo that is fork of libbpf/libbpf[3]. > As someone (I think it was Andrii) pointed out during the session, the > vast files currently in my fork are not needed at all. The GitHub Action > workflow only needs the .github/, plus the supplement files under ci/. > > Technically BPF CI for stable can also simply be merged back to > libbpf/libbpf No, that's a bad idea. >, but that felt less ideal because: > - kbuilder-debian container image currently doesn't work when testing > stable kernels (I haven't look at reason of failure, might not be hard > to fix) Technically, it's not a hard requirement to use the container. It makes the build jobs a little faster and a little more reliable, but it was crafted for bpf-next testing, which may not be ideal for stable. If necessary you could develop a separate "kbuilder-stable" container, but it's up to you to decide whether it's needed. > - actions that tests stable kernel will be mixed with actions targeting > libbpf itself > - BPF CI for stable will have to contain version-specific tweaks (e.g. > [4]) This is fine and expected. It is of course great to be able to reuse code, but practically speaking, I think in this case it may be more work to keep the common parts compatible with both stable and bpf-next workflows, than maintaining two diverged CI trees. The rule of thumb should be this: if you can use a libbpf/ci action, do it. If there is something very specific to the workflow, keep it in place. Don't be shy copy-pasting yaml fragments that work for you, it's fine. > > None of the above are fatal flaws that prevent libbf/libbpf to host > files that run BPF selftests on stable kernel, so I'd say having a > standalone repository is more of a personal preference. I agree that a standalone repository is the way to go. > > OTOH we can also try kernel-patches/bpf-like approach and have a > kernel-patches/stable, providing proper, fully-fledged BPF CI for stable > that tests incoming patchset to stable (not sure if Daniel was asking > about this during the session). But I find this to be much more work. We don't have to do this work right away (or ever). First let's set up the kernel-patches/stable (or whatever the name) with the implementation you already have. We can enhance and improve it when there are cycles and willingness to do so in the future, > The current approach of applying queued patches from stable-queue[5], > while comes with quite some delay between the moment patch is proposed > to stable mailing vs the moment said patch gets tested, seem like a > workable compromise. This can be automated by the way. Check out linux-next sync on current BPF CI, it's straightforward [2]. There is a job periodically syncing a branch, and the CI pipeline is triggered on push. [1] https://github.com/kernel-patches/ [2] https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/.github/workflows/linux-next-sync.yml > > > Thanks, > Shung-Hsi > > 1: https://speakerdeck.com/shunghsiyu/bpf-in-stable-kernels-an-update > 2: https://github.com/shunghsiyu/libbpf/pull/5 > 3: https://github.com/shunghsiyu/libbpf/ > 4: https://github.com/shunghsiyu/libbpf/tree/master/ci/diffs/6.1 > 5: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git/