BPF List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Ankur Arora" <ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v16 15/16] barrier: timeout validity checks for smp_cond_load_relaxed_timeout()
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2026 07:19:18 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <sashiko-outbox-173914@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261016070837.440748-16-ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Low] kselftest: barrier: incorrectly skips invalid timeout tests on ARM64
--

commit bda3f35055835da4a210dfc722306737806214d9
Author: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>

barrier: timeout validity checks for smp_cond_load_relaxed_timeout()

This commit adds timeout tests for smp_cond_load_relaxed_timeout() to verify
that the implementation returns early on invalid timeout values and handles
edge cases sanely.

> diff --git a/lib/tests/barrier-timeout-test.c b/lib/tests/barrier-timeout-test.c
> index 9c12cd36e7d29..88b374ceb78b4 100644
> --- a/lib/tests/barrier-timeout-test.c
> +++ b/lib/tests/barrier-timeout-test.c
[ ... ]
> +static char *expiry_skip_test(const struct smp_cond_expiry_params *p)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * WFXT waits for the full p->timeout_ns so limit it to a reasonable
> +	 * duration.
> +	 */
> +	if (alternative_has_cap_unlikely(ARM64_HAS_WFXT) &&
> +	    p->timeout_ns >= NSEC_PER_SEC) {

[Severity: Low]
Does this skip the invalid timeout test cases on ARM64 by mistake?

The expiry_params_list includes intentional negative values (like -1LL or
~0ULL) to verify error handling, but p->timeout_ns is defined as a u64.
When these invalid inputs are compared as unsigned, they evaluate to numbers
larger than NSEC_PER_SEC, causing them to be skipped with the reason
"runtime duration too long".

Because the smp_cond_load_relaxed_timeout() macro casts timeouts to s64 and
returns instantly for negative values, these cases never actually execute a
WFXT sleep. Skipping them deprives ARM64 of test coverage for the
early-return fast path.

Could this regression be resolved by checking if
(s64)p->timeout_ns >= NSEC_PER_SEC, or by avoiding the skip when
p->maxiters == 0?

> +
> +		return "runtime duration too long";
> +	}
> +#endif
> +	return NULL;
> +}

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261016070837.440748-1-ankur.a.arora@oracle.com?part=15

  reply	other threads:[~2026-10-16  7:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-10-16  7:08 [PATCH v16 00/16] barrier: Add smp_cond_load_{relaxed,acquire}_timeout() Ankur Arora
2026-10-16  7:08 ` [PATCH v16 01/16] asm-generic: barrier: Add smp_cond_load_relaxed_timeout() Ankur Arora
2026-10-16  7:21   ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-16  7:55   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-10-16  7:08 ` [PATCH v16 02/16] arm64: barrier: Support smp_cond_load_relaxed_timeout() Ankur Arora
2026-10-16  7:24   ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-16  7:08 ` [PATCH v16 03/16] arm64/delay: move, fixup usecs_to_cycles() Ankur Arora
2026-10-16  7:16   ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-16  7:55   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-10-16 12:22   ` Catalin Marinas
2026-10-16  7:08 ` [PATCH v16 04/16] arm64: support WFET in smp_cond_load_relaxed_timeout() Ankur Arora
2026-10-16  7:27   ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-16  7:55   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-10-16  7:08 ` [PATCH v16 05/16] arm64: rqspinlock: Remove private copy of smp_cond_load_acquire_timewait() Ankur Arora
2026-10-16  7:08 ` [PATCH v16 06/16] asm-generic: barrier: Add smp_cond_load_acquire_timeout() Ankur Arora
2026-10-16  7:21   ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-16  7:08 ` [PATCH v16 07/16] atomic: Add atomic_cond_read_*_timeout() Ankur Arora
2026-10-16  7:25   ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-16  7:08 ` [PATCH v16 08/16] locking/atomic: scripts: build atomic_long_cond_read_*_timeout() Ankur Arora
2026-10-16  7:08 ` [PATCH v16 09/16] bpf/rqspinlock: switch check_timeout() to a clock interface Ankur Arora
2026-10-16  7:08 ` [PATCH v16 10/16] bpf/rqspinlock: Use smp_cond_load_acquire_timeout() Ankur Arora
2026-10-16  7:08 ` [PATCH v16 11/16] sched: add need-resched timed wait interface Ankur Arora
2026-10-16  7:08 ` [PATCH v16 12/16] cpuidle/poll_state: Wait for need-resched via tif_need_resched_relaxed_wait() Ankur Arora
2026-10-16  7:08 ` [PATCH v16 13/16] arm64/delay: enable testing smp_cond_load_relaxed_timeout() Ankur Arora
2026-10-16  7:20   ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-16  7:08 ` [PATCH v16 14/16] barrier: add tests for smp_cond_load_*_timeout() Ankur Arora
2026-10-16  7:55   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-10-16  7:08 ` [PATCH v16 15/16] barrier: timeout validity checks for smp_cond_load_relaxed_timeout() Ankur Arora
2026-10-16  7:19   ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-10-16  7:55   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-10-16  7:08 ` [PATCH v16 16/16] barrier: timeout validity checks for smp_cond_load_acquire_timeout() Ankur Arora

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=sashiko-outbox-173914@kernel.org \
    --to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
    --cc=ankur.a.arora@oracle.com \
    --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