BPF List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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);
>> +}


  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