Re: [PATCH v11 bpf-next 12/12] selftests/bpf: add C-level selftests for indirect jumps

[Anton Protopopov <a.s.protopopov@gmail.com>]

On 25/11/05 09:28AM, bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org wrote:
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_gotox.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_gotox.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000..ea1cd3cda
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_gotox.c
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> > @@ -0,0 +1,292 @@
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> > +static void check_one_map_two_jumps(struct bpf_gotox *skel)
> > +{
> > +	struct bpf_prog_info prog_info;
> > +	struct bpf_map_info map_info;
> > +	__u32 len;
> > +	__u32 map_ids[16];
> > +	int prog_fd, map_fd;
> > +	int ret;
> > +	int i;
> > +	bool seen = false;
> > +
> > +	memset(&prog_info, 0, sizeof(prog_info));
> > +	prog_info.map_ids = (long)map_ids;
> > +	prog_info.nr_map_ids = ARRAY_SIZE(map_ids);
> > +	prog_fd = bpf_program__fd(skel->progs.one_map_two_jumps);
> > +	if (!ASSERT_GE(prog_fd, 0, "bpf_program__fd(one_map_two_jumps)"))
> > +		return;
> > +
> > +	len = sizeof(prog_info);
> > +	ret = bpf_obj_get_info_by_fd(prog_fd, &prog_info, &len);
> > +	if (!ASSERT_OK(ret, "bpf_obj_get_info_by_fd(prog_fd)"))
> > +		return;
> > +
> > +	for (i = 0; i < prog_info.nr_map_ids; i++) {
> > +		map_fd  = bpf_map_get_fd_by_id(map_ids[i]);
> > +		if (!ASSERT_GE(map_fd, 0, "bpf_program__fd(one_map_two_jumps)"))
>                                                 ^^^^
> 
> This isn't a bug, but the error message looks like it was copied from the
> prog_fd check above. Should this say "bpf_map_get_fd_by_id" instead?

Yes, it should

> 
> > +			return;
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> 
> ---
> AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug.
> See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md
> 
> CI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/19096860051