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 F21EB56261C; Tue, 13 Oct 2026 22:27:01 +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=1791930423; cv=none; b=X7e3VuVhiTT9CERJzyqKsdFkDOzCRyMjqZAVXUY/CFv4O5cIttHNbJhCLE/rfqXlZFX0pXFNsZ5mQ/7zXPhAjlv+MNxquwQzDSchax3UUfTbaNhYrbKyP4cgZUXH34FnRCh+L6JFsOdTabfFw2xMuvVLeMOQbdfNKuMVLFCLQO0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791930423; c=relaxed/simple; bh=sEIrpFMFnOHxFLRCJUJoyFA3jIhqRGwbE58tvujmYic=; h=Message-ID:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type: Date; b=XQkM1nk5rR0ZUXGks6tgan8pzhooODP+2Fp2/iuswOAgx1zPlaBcmSTXQ3f0iIDsz0glwFdyuJG7ERO/h0UEY1jADjHw0ydFM/qFFNuygYZDnLuCBXETcKnIIWSnVI5+H9mLyom9S3wqks9TIKHV2U6AwhRNtI3S6M8vpEOP3AY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=ZmelaPd3; 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="ZmelaPd3" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 85F891F000FF; Tue, 13 Oct 2026 22:27:01 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1791930421; bh=BWLHpNDhUoFqrvHhAvfyFqkwTeOW6MkdyXRqMWS1DtU=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=ZmelaPd3dy2y9oKnYm85a/D3MIKUdNUBk6A1ZLQSm9yA+g7Ja4Yj4TUgkrH3VSezR y4+1B1jPZfmAVJ3T6deM97T3Oeo+Tdexcu2o0X619w99cEUHQfKwF2I+RdUIX9/S7a ximNZGuvhGnWVr/YlPcO1i90GuPKKkdX7eC5opm6HBZ28gOk0uYdz+Fo0IQzXfpTpM 8ro4o9FnhCQoA98R8otL1bX0q+XSgYe4/+TJ/4A5BmRyQmNpjRRpyVYkPbtgNYETvA OTdbH/cvGPwfwRH4qTP350csAQuM+W1E9awnTukllfHk4n+01dr3lRRlIvBgDKDFn0 qNo/buAvI7E4Q== Message-ID: From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] perf build: Support building BPF skeletons with bpf-gcc Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Ian Rogers" Cc: linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20261013221643.1815686-2-irogers@google.com> References: <20261013221643.1815686-1-irogers@google.com> <20261013221643.1815686-2-irogers@google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2026 22:27:01 +0000 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(= s) to consider: - [Medium] perf build: bpf-gcc version check bypassed due to mutually exclu= sive GCC arguments -- commit b2c0a31ec137ebce8b46644a6edfe507e7c3b298 Author: Ian Rogers perf build: Support building BPF skeletons with bpf-gcc This commit supports building perf BPF skeletons with bpf-gcc (>=3D 14.0.0) in addition to clang. It updates the build system to prefer bpf-gcc when building with GCC, and falls back to Clang if bpf-gcc is unavailable or too old. > diff --git a/tools/perf/Makefile.config b/tools/perf/Makefile.config > --- a/tools/perf/Makefile.config > +++ b/tools/perf/Makefile.config [ ... ] > + define check_bpf_gcc > + ifneq ($$(call get-executable,$$(BPF_GCC)),) > + BPF_GCC_VERSION :=3D $$(shell $$(BPF_GCC) -dumpfullversion -dump= version 2>/dev/null) [Severity: Medium] Does passing both -dumpfullversion and -dumpversion simultaneously cause GCC to fail with a fatal error? If GCC rejects these mutually exclusive arguments, the error output is suppressed by 2>/dev/null, resulting in BPF_GCC_VERSION evaluating to an empty string. > + ifneq ($$(call version-lt3,$$(BPF_GCC_VERSION),14.0.0),1) > + have_bpf_gcc :=3D 1 > + endif When version-lt3 is called with an empty string against 14.0.0, the underlying awk expression evaluates this as false (0). The outer check ifneq (0,1) then evaluates to true, unconditionally setting have_bpf_gcc :=3D 1. Can this regression result in the version check being completely bypassed, allowing older, unsupported versions of bpf-gcc to be incorrectly permitted to build BPF skeletons instead of properly falling back to Clang? > + endif > + endef --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261013221643.1815= 686-1-irogers@google.com?part=3D1