From: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
To: bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: ast@kernel.org, andrii@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net,
jose.marchesi@oracle.com, kernel-team@fb.com,
martin.lau@kernel.org, eddyz87@gmail.com, clm@meta.com,
ihor.solodrai@linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 14/16] selftests/bpf: Add tests for BPF function stack arguments
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2026 11:26:42 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b6171543-66a7-44e6-99f7-b45404c04fb8@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b043233260f364926181102a9a5f5c5e0a8b339554403fe73f7518cf52d3a72a@mail.kernel.org>
On 4/17/26 5:52 PM, bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org wrote:
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/stack_arg.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/stack_arg.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..130eaf1c4a78
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/stack_arg.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,133 @@
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>> +/* Copyright (c) 2026 Meta Platforms, Inc. and affiliates. */
>> +
>> +#include <test_progs.h>
>> +#include <network_helpers.h>
>> +#include "stack_arg.skel.h"
>> +#include "stack_arg_kfunc.skel.h"
>> +
>> +static void run_subtest(struct bpf_program *prog, int expected)
>> +{
>> + int err, prog_fd;
>> + LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_test_run_opts, topts,
>> + .data_in = &pkt_v4,
>> + .data_size_in = sizeof(pkt_v4),
>> + .repeat = 1,
>> + );
>> +
>> + prog_fd = bpf_program__fd(prog);
>> + err = bpf_prog_test_run_opts(prog_fd, &topts);
>> + ASSERT_OK(err, "test_run");
>> + ASSERT_EQ(topts.retval, expected, "retval");
>> +}
> [ ... ]
>
>> +static void test_async_cb_many(void)
>> +{
>> + struct stack_arg *skel;
>> +
>> + skel = stack_arg__open();
>> + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "open"))
>> + return;
>> +
>> + if (!skel->rodata->has_stack_arg) {
>> + test__skip();
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (!ASSERT_OK(stack_arg__load(skel), "load"))
>> + goto out;
>> +
>> + run_subtest(skel->progs.test_async_cb_many_args, 0);
>> +
>> +out:
>> + stack_arg__destroy(skel);
>> +}
> Does this test adequately verify the asynchronous timer callback
> execution and its result?
>
> Since run_subtest() only runs the program and asserts the return value
> is 0, the skeleton is immediately destroyed afterward. The timer
> callback might not have time to execute and could be canceled during map
> destruction.
>
> The result of the callback (timer_result) is never verified in
> userspace. Should there be a polling loop waiting for the timer to fire,
> followed by an assertion checking that skel->bss->timer_result == 360?
Okay, the timer test is incomplete. Let me add more meet to actually get
a timer result.
>
> Reference: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20260417042017.CF065C19425@smtp.kernel.org/
>
> [ ... ]
>
>
> ---
> 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/24592562564
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-04-18 18:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 73+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-04-17 3:46 [PATCH bpf-next v5 00/16] bpf: Support stack arguments for BPF functions and kfuncs Yonghong Song
2026-04-17 3:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 01/16] bpf: Remove unused parameter from check_map_kptr_access() Yonghong Song
2026-04-17 3:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 02/16] bpf: Refactor to avoid redundant calculation of bpf_reg_state Yonghong Song
2026-04-17 3:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 03/16] bpf: Refactor to handle memory and size together Yonghong Song
2026-04-17 4:49 ` sashiko-bot
2026-04-18 16:40 ` Yonghong Song
2026-04-18 0:52 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-18 16:47 ` Yonghong Song
2026-04-17 3:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 04/16] bpf: Prepare verifier logs for upcoming kfunc stack arguments Yonghong Song
2026-04-17 3:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 05/16] bpf: Introduce bpf register BPF_REG_PARAMS Yonghong Song
2026-04-17 3:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 06/16] bpf: Limit the scope of BPF_REG_PARAMS usage Yonghong Song
2026-04-17 4:30 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-18 16:48 ` Yonghong Song
2026-04-17 4:50 ` sashiko-bot
2026-04-18 16:50 ` Yonghong Song
2026-04-18 1:04 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-18 16:54 ` Yonghong Song
2026-04-17 3:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 07/16] bpf: Reuse MAX_BPF_FUNC_ARGS for maximum number of arguments Yonghong Song
2026-04-17 4:30 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-18 17:00 ` Yonghong Song
2026-04-18 0:52 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-18 17:03 ` Yonghong Song
2026-04-17 3:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 08/16] bpf: Support stack arguments for bpf functions Yonghong Song
2026-04-17 4:35 ` sashiko-bot
2026-04-18 17:10 ` Yonghong Song
2026-04-17 4:43 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-18 17:11 ` Yonghong Song
2026-04-18 1:04 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-17 3:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 09/16] bpf: Reject stack arguments in non-JITed programs Yonghong Song
2026-04-17 4:30 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-18 17:17 ` Yonghong Song
2026-04-18 0:52 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-17 3:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 10/16] bpf: Reject stack arguments if tail call reachable Yonghong Song
2026-04-17 4:08 ` sashiko-bot
2026-04-18 17:18 ` Yonghong Song
2026-04-18 17:37 ` Yonghong Song
2026-04-17 4:30 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-18 1:04 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-18 17:24 ` Yonghong Song
2026-04-17 3:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 11/16] bpf: Support stack arguments for kfunc calls Yonghong Song
2026-04-17 4:40 ` sashiko-bot
2026-04-18 17:46 ` Yonghong Song
2026-04-17 4:43 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-18 17:57 ` Yonghong Song
2026-04-18 1:04 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-18 18:04 ` Yonghong Song
2026-04-17 3:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 12/16] bpf: Enable stack argument support for x86_64 Yonghong Song
2026-04-17 4:30 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-17 5:03 ` sashiko-bot
2026-04-18 18:07 ` Yonghong Song
2026-04-18 1:04 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-17 3:48 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 13/16] bpf,x86: Implement JIT support for stack arguments Yonghong Song
2026-04-17 4:44 ` sashiko-bot
2026-04-18 16:43 ` Puranjay Mohan
2026-04-18 18:15 ` Yonghong Song
2026-04-18 1:20 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-18 18:23 ` Yonghong Song
2026-04-17 3:48 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 14/16] selftests/bpf: Add tests for BPF function " Yonghong Song
2026-04-17 4:20 ` sashiko-bot
2026-04-18 0:52 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-18 18:26 ` Yonghong Song [this message]
2026-04-17 3:48 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 15/16] selftests/bpf: Add negative test for greater-than-8-byte kfunc stack argument Yonghong Song
2026-04-17 4:28 ` sashiko-bot
2026-04-18 18:29 ` Yonghong Song
2026-04-18 0:52 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-17 3:48 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 16/16] selftests/bpf: Add verifier tests for stack argument validation Yonghong Song
2026-04-17 4:38 ` sashiko-bot
2026-04-18 18:36 ` Yonghong Song
2026-04-18 0:52 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-18 16:39 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 00/16] bpf: Support stack arguments for BPF functions and kfuncs Puranjay Mohan
2026-04-18 18:47 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-04-18 18:54 ` Yonghong Song
2026-04-18 17:06 ` Puranjay Mohan
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=b6171543-66a7-44e6-99f7-b45404c04fb8@linux.dev \
--to=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=clm@meta.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=ihor.solodrai@linux.dev \
--cc=jose.marchesi@oracle.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
/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