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 E3B3E3B6C0E for ; Thu, 15 Oct 2026 02:23:38 +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=1792031019; cv=none; b=CfjFhDJTw5RWTIfp2uQL7cApnPzwDljo+h8Kn6MjyD1wDYzDedV3Yo6vrILpiDPv8ZWlew4qHWwJhEJXI7G2Xejf0ekAbgGuGz9kFXubHBIBw5mhCVatpsJmtX5K4JJmc5q7vpBJtxYW4o1FN42iq/IJt9v4Dx9wkwTXAvfmJb4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1792031019; c=relaxed/simple; bh=mC3nudLPrjM6WRt7shbO4oTgaNvbA+nyF2WGUhKktXk=; h=Message-ID:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type: Date; b=Mjm6S1BmCi9+cYNYBLt6VGMQAIIPUIwOmtKj6520EavXxkCAEMfUEQeNsviWzXAkaMIE52Jx2my062zmdpPZf7WTse1/KuzrVz5RJmKvmBxTaGecppvehY3NblpK4OtIK8nGnvP285YxhlRJ0NjlZr3N9VAxbNxgXA8HVJShNQM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=jnVHRAhK; 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="jnVHRAhK" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 68C891F000C4; Thu, 15 Oct 2026 02:23:38 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1792031018; bh=ynWpw2DZsdJ2j8gFvl++6JNfnWhfoGbfsuba6rQmEaA=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=jnVHRAhKt+lqsCcMQS9S9Y+ZhThK2SWl9X9wAUkHL1L2PNAkskRhjJgLN7GKlLZry CEaC9wb8mI1DCxHqKINfbtqQrx+41OTtkGMdcwPse8LbvolnLZdVovqFzfzwnPS8Mi FOPs3oACtcwQuV1uwXTgxgDN4kagf7CBNxH/ZlsycNF0lYiLBy2FwLuKWjWxnynns1 qiZNsrs6ImLZodYifCp/7v22qBJtLno5bK6K09TFhQCt0yoY+DYOB3DMvZyGvgiIrn UY4JMUccVyvXXCdzQqN5XK4fWUI3VmhgjS48nEjhbi30o+kRftMYDpxA1fX7XNo/iu 5UyE6pwv9ckGw== Message-ID: From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 3/3] selftests/bpf: Add a runtime test for private stack and stack arguments Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Chen Pei" Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20261015021238.5657-4-cp0613@linux.alibaba.com> References: <20261015021238.5657-1-cp0613@linux.alibaba.com> <20261015021238.5657-4-cp0613@linux.alibaba.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2026 02:23:38 +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] bpf: test flakiness due to parallel struct_ops attachment -- commit 30217e3723f8427977b857ce4b668a913d8e6da3 Author: Chen Pei selftests/bpf: Add a runtime test for private stack and stack arguments This commit adds a runtime test for combining private stacks with outgoing stack arguments. It validates the structural layout via disassembly patterns and checks runtime execution context across CPUs. It also includes a struct_ops test to act as a kernel stack control case. > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/private_stack_runtime= .c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/private_stack_runtime.c > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000000000..3af24ca8009f4 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/private_stack_runtime.c > @@ -0,0 +1,83 @@ > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > +#include > +#include > +#include "private_stack_runtime.h" > +#include "private_stack_runtime.skel.h" > + > +void test_private_stack_runtime(void) > +{ [Severity: Medium] Will this cause test flakiness in CI due to parallel execution? The test function lacks the serial_ prefix, so it will run concurrently in the test_progs worker threads rather than in isolation. [ ... ] > + ASSERT_GT(tested, 0, "tested_cpus"); > + > + ops =3D bpf_map__attach_struct_ops(skel->maps.zero_stack_ops); > + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(ops, "attach_zero_stack")) > + goto out; [Severity: Medium] Since zero_stack_ops targets the singleton bpf_testmod_ops3 in bpf_testmod, executing this concurrently with other non-serial tests that attach to the same struct_ops (such as test_struct_ops_private_stack) can cause random -EEXIST failures. st_ops3_reg() in bpf_testmod.c enforces a single active attachment: if (st_ops3) ... err =3D -EEXIST Could this function be renamed to serial_test_private_stack_runtime to avoid resource conflicts with other tests? --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261015021238.5657= -1-cp0613@linux.alibaba.com?part=3D3