From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1794427693; b=GHFxBOqUAlwVwq5dHGjcP+H4q+7m8pfNBPA2f/EoKwmQs7GM6xPMT1oEGhMcOUo9WjP6 5WSMD9a8f1Y+gX/Gry4eM3Lh4RlQE2G7Om5hNN1X0DmXQR1hfySlhudRc2og6QuF1tCg1 LTuMuiw65PUAbaa8crlmqBmk0vn/hxZO5/HfrLFBoE6o3iJwtJDYw2LpLXhYeJVA7Y/9m BME7pIevwOz6BZZFWhoHkDIcu2Utlskc+JpHCUqzxbi6dTqE40BfDzUmnfsYkaJKU+LcC oBhElT6wLjbiTry2BIzeqkBf1PpVzaVbPAeEiQMuPmav1LqbL8PpF8UwHQPpVEgj9bg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1794427693; h=Received:DKIM-Signature:Message-ID:From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Date; bh=21eCwXfXPFUzZoM2u/q0ArEzbrXYJijompIaapRnAhA=; b=eVvi5XjMWmseoo4/qDQ1yOZ5aBUaDt15+eXilqzVzBDLubU+moZ0mMgfCLAO/aqnGRez l/n57vSGon8O+YUMOw2M7IJxd1+7CYA+pwNKSsljivxyuWFBgIcEU9FG8URo5tNg8kYQq gQzTUj7mJ7F6RyBbW188eJ5Dq5nVsbDJWnfztfT5czS/QNIrebWIuxczUYTwi+51ZC0xF yb8vRa9SoF9QKp//YZs4ElsZUOwpZbH+rU46fPAX+S1KbK/9tiIN+xUVbpEjjFd2Wvo0K fWsot8ACAReHaLG+AVanjb5brIKbHWK9nMoYgEJa5VAjf3siWTBssdZbQHEUXsjIwhg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20260515 header.b=dh8xc9Tv; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=100.103.45.18 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (quasi.space.kernel.org [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED2B9606A321; Wed, 11 Nov 2026 20:08:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20260515 header.b=dh8xc9Tv Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 62B271F00A05; Wed, 11 Nov 2026 20:08:12 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1794427692; bh=21eCwXfXPFUzZoM2u/q0ArEzbrXYJijompIaapRnAhA=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=dh8xc9Tvv0NQPXjBJANsMkJeqAM+q0b0te7GWhh5lUE9FyaYcUYeDDyGi27+F3gAc RH6Zuyqoee4psSjfkxqfcf8eW29SyoOEiAZdi+Gh5u0mGNriNGiEroD/6DtbUrc8Sd GIadHjhbenoOeA8N8kHe5QVE8VTk/xCAg/t3d15xp8/qpuaKIP5czKOqp48TeodfN5 2UexNK6PB2Th8ClvbpQmGnRDOxZAUVCikzMhpCXYFuehxgNS/5Rjpe8a10pjPb9Nx5 nTyMAycoRPxF1JzWQoNItp3A+h5WMpVfTdPtHECD6Vk4ujYS8y/Yt78tdPYCtrDJx5 kGI6Mtvq/abLQ== Message-ID: From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 4/5] selftests/bpf: Add trampoline and raw_tp preemption recursion test Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Mike Bazov" , bpf@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20261111-bpf-preempt-v2-r2-v2-4-9d8f6b952ad2@sentinelone.com> References: <20261111-bpf-preempt-v2-r2-v2-0-9d8f6b952ad2@sentinelone.com> <20261111-bpf-preempt-v2-r2-v2-4-9d8f6b952ad2@sentinelone.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2026 20:08:11 +0000 X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue to consider: - [Medium] selftests/bpf: raw #pragma unroll in fill_stack() breaks bpf-gcc build -- commit 85924bc5107b6604b6bb8852a70f1660aa030b1c Author: Mike Bazov selftests/bpf: Add trampoline and raw_tp preemption recursion test This commit adds BPF selftests verifying preemption, private-stack isolation, and recursion rejection across trampoline and raw tracepoint program types. > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/trampoline_preempt.c b/too= ls/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/trampoline_preempt.c > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000000000..78ed74627a79d > --- /dev/null > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/trampoline_preempt.c > @@ -0,0 +1,265 @@ [ ... ] > +static __always_inline void fill_stack(__u64 *buf, __u32 tid) > +{ > + #pragma unroll > + for (int i =3D 0; i < 8; i++) > + buf[i] =3D ((__u64)tid << 32) | (0x5a5a0000U + i); > +} > + > +static __always_inline void check_stack(const __u64 *buf, __u32 tid) > +{ > + #pragma unroll > + for (int i =3D 0; i < 8; i++) { > + if (buf[i] !=3D (((__u64)tid << 32) | (0x5a5a0000U + i))) > + stack_corrupt =3D 1; > + } > +} [Severity: Medium] Does raw #pragma unroll in fill_stack() and check_stack() break the test_progs-bpf_gcc build with -Werror=3Dunknown-pragmas? Including bpf_compiler.h and using __pragma_loop_unroll (or __pragma_loop_unroll_full), as introduced in 52dbd67dff5d ("bpf: Abstract loop unrolling pragmas in BPF selftests"), avoids the bpf-gcc build failure. --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261111-bpf-preemp= t-v2-r2-v2-0-9d8f6b952ad2@sentinelone.com?part=3D4