From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (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 629E635CBD6 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 2026 22:56:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788476182; cv=none; b=FSd8XF8rF846VaefYupl9vcMQyMZf59ScSFCEo52TW6APmv7iCJvgFU3z+VHbdrSSENdV3Wr3/1CHxTaoqk7oamNIoDKBBYDH1x3jqkew/1csNyAdSbZyjVbTQVr1TbMjYucymULDcR5Le5ODfcDXnf1DkYdzdKlHoCFskgFHqg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788476182; c=relaxed/simple; bh=P1ElIQbKzJGOVeDtOzaY2N/r7Baq4dl4cAV9ntAlA0I=; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References: Subject:From:To:Cc:Date; b=scpv1IzvLeDfjnky2jIitWXtPjjAcwPAWIuWoniRXvTASihqUH2C1nudimuRr9eU3YuUriI7qfUX7QUeIFqLgZ9hMy2BK9wgbaMjS15keQAz1L9llI8tkAizwtubXf/2qoNh5DUwZNrd3n2xVtv1sriNSaaNLWKYfI6KXsVJGFs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=gG4Dopk3; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="gG4Dopk3" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 588381F00A3D; Thu, 3 Sep 2026 22:56:20 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1788476181; bh=P1ElIQbKzJGOVeDtOzaY2N/r7Baq4dl4cAV9ntAlA0I=; h=In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date; b=gG4Dopk3ikH5/bJY0jWibL/uPpKL1eSNgT6SuzMXxMZRIkEoIlErTRxO/SyPBn+aP KyIXSUIab4x5sLLSk+5widgW31wqoW4LZEk4u/4S0I7Xevrd8ZPV3Z33nFB0Vg/WcN psFEnby/bENdiKTWtIAs6xf8KeKpinGuWLNCP1W/SVMqC3iz+Xa6Tg0FUK7ZIbaWa3 kEkKpL5SSC4MdwTlyjcOS2utGR6Zyvz0akfLB0Jy87yahLZaKlt8ejTVKGg72KloxH oqnB2uRtpXuprygiXK8/OXutigo6uGic53xKGnOA5ASXO2G9/b+viwhv/CW8YWeGLk hel/bSbt9hg1Q== Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7076777226497522637==" Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20260903214758.2727663-7-memxor@gmail.com> References: <20260903214758.2727663-7-memxor@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf v1 6/8] selftests/bpf: Check faultable stack helper contexts From: bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org To: memxor@gmail.com,bpf@vger.kernel.org Cc: ast@kernel.org,andrii@kernel.org,daniel@iogearbox.net,eddyz87@gmail.com,emil@etsalapatis.com,npc@anthropic.com,kkd@meta.com,kernel-team@meta.com,ast@kernel.org,andrii@kernel.org,daniel@iogearbox.net,martin.lau@kernel.org,eddyz87@gmail.com,yonghong.song@linux.dev,mason@kernel.org,ihor.solodrai@linux.dev Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2026 22:56:20 +0000 (UTC) --===============7076777226497522637== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Add verifier coverage for the sleepable bpf_get_stack() and > bpf_get_task_stack() implementations. Call each helper while preemption is > disabled and require the verifier to reject it as sleepable. > > Both programs load when the prototypes lack might_sleep, so the > expected-failure tests fail. Keep success controls outside the > non-preemptible region to ensure ordinary calls from sleepable uprobes > remain valid. > > Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi This isn't a bug, but the phrasing "Both programs load when the prototypes lack might_sleep, so the expected-failure tests fail" reads a bit oddly in present tense when the patch is adding the tests. It could be read as reporting that the tree currently has failing tests, though the intent seems to be explaining why the negative tests are discriminating. Also, which pair of programs does "both" refer to when four programs are added? Would it read more clearly as something like "Without the prototype change in the previous patch both programs would load, so these expected-failure tests pin the new rejection"? --- 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/33811770362 --===============7076777226497522637==--