From: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v6 09/10] selftests/bpf: Add inline-asm and subprog tests for R0:R2 returns
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2026 09:53:38 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c5d05037-e32e-4126-b336-3e44dba8054e@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260817044221.152F31F00A3A@smtp.kernel.org>
On 8/16/26 9:42 PM, sashiko-bot@kernel.org wrote:
> Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
> - [Medium] The test `aggregate_ret_kfunc_too_big_fail` is incorrectly restricted to only run on x86_64 and arm64 architectures.
> --
>
> --- Patch [9]: [PATCH bpf-next v6 09/10] selftests/bpf: Add inline-asm and subprog tests for R0:R2 returns ---
> commit b44fbeb59afa99f6be0f33037220d124e0fb4e12
> Author: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
>
> selftests/bpf: Add inline-asm and subprog tests for R0:R2 returns
>
> This commit adds BPF inline-assembly tests to cover BPF-to-BPF returns, kfunc
> calls, backtracking, and liveness for functions returning values in the R0:R2
> register pair. It also includes an extension test to ensure a function returning
> R0:R2 cannot be replaced.
>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/aggregate_ret_kfunc.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/aggregate_ret_kfunc.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000000000..c23b4beb1773c
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/aggregate_ret_kfunc.c
> [ ... ]
>
>> +/*
>> + * A return value larger than 16 bytes does not fit in R0:R2 and is rejected by
>> + * btf_distill_func_proto(), before the KF_FASTCALL and JIT-capability checks,
>> + * so this behaves the same on every architecture.
>> + */
>> +SEC("tc")
>> +__arch_x86_64 __arch_arm64
> [Severity: Medium]
> Are these architecture restriction tags intended here?
>
> The comment right above mentions that this test behaves the same on every
> architecture, but the __arch_x86_64 and __arch_arm64 tags artificially limit
> aggregate_ret_kfunc_too_big_fail() to only run on those two architectures,
> which prevents the test from running on others.
Okay, I don't have 100% confidence about every architecture. So let us
change to
/*
* A return value larger than 16 bytes does not fit in R0:R2 and is rejected by
* btf_distill_func_proto() before the KF_FASTCALL and JIT-capability checks.
*/
>
>> +__failure __msg("The function bpf_kfunc_call_test_ret_big return type STRUCT is unsupported")
>> +__naked int aggregate_ret_kfunc_too_big_fail(void)
>> +{
>> + asm volatile (
>> + "call %[bpf_kfunc_call_test_ret_big];"
>> + "r0 = 0;"
>> + "exit;"
>> + :
>> + : __imm(bpf_kfunc_call_test_ret_big)
>> + : __clobber_all);
>> +}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-17 16:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-17 4:21 [PATCH bpf-next v6 00/10] bpf: Support aggregate return values up to 16 bytes Yonghong Song
2026-08-17 4:21 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 01/10] bpf: Factor check_global_ret_scalar_reg() out of the global return check Yonghong Song
2026-08-17 4:21 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 02/10] bpf: Add helpers to describe the R0:R2 return register pair Yonghong Song
2026-08-17 5:17 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-17 15:20 ` Yonghong Song
2026-08-17 4:21 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 03/10] bpf: Wire up JIT support for 16-byte kfunc returns Yonghong Song
2026-08-17 4:37 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-17 15:25 ` Yonghong Song
2026-08-17 4:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 04/10] bpf: Handle R2 as a return register in precision backtracking Yonghong Song
2026-08-17 5:17 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-17 15:27 ` Yonghong Song
2026-08-17 4:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 05/10] bpf: Account R2 of register-pair returns in live register analysis Yonghong Song
2026-08-17 4:43 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-17 15:40 ` Yonghong Song
2026-08-17 4:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 06/10] bpf: Add verifier support for 16-byte returns in R0:R2 Yonghong Song
2026-08-17 4:42 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-17 15:46 ` Yonghong Song
2026-08-17 5:17 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-17 16:02 ` Yonghong Song
2026-08-17 4:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 07/10] bpf: Enable aggregate return types up to 16 bytes Yonghong Song
2026-08-17 4:42 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-17 16:12 ` Yonghong Song
2026-08-17 4:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 08/10] selftests/bpf: Add C tests for 16-byte returns in R0:R2 Yonghong Song
2026-08-17 4:45 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-17 16:32 ` Yonghong Song
2026-08-17 4:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 09/10] selftests/bpf: Add inline-asm and subprog tests for R0:R2 returns Yonghong Song
2026-08-17 4:42 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-17 16:53 ` Yonghong Song [this message]
2026-08-17 5:17 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-17 17:12 ` Yonghong Song
2026-08-17 4:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 10/10] Documentation/bpf: Document up to 16-byte kfunc return values in R0:R2 Yonghong Song
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=c5d05037-e32e-4126-b336-3e44dba8054e@linux.dev \
--to=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--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