From: Venkat Rao Bagalkote <venkat88@linux.ibm.com>
To: Hari Bathini <hbathini@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests/bpf: test accounting of tail calls when prog is NULL
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2026 20:31:00 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0cbbc97a-ebb8-41d8-ac88-2a954279d10c@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1463952f-ccdc-4496-8041-12fb79ef3e9e@linux.ibm.com>
On 16/02/26 4:41 pm, Hari Bathini wrote:
>
>
> On 16/02/26 4:38 pm, Venkat wrote:
>> Hello Hari,
>>
>> With this patch, tailcalls selftest is failing.
>>
>> # ./test_progs -t tailcalls
>> tester_init:PASS:tester_log_buf 0 nsec
>> process_subtest:PASS:obj_open_mem 0 nsec
>> process_subtest:PASS:specs_alloc 0 nsec
>> #448/1 tailcalls/tailcall_1:OK
>> #448/2 tailcalls/tailcall_2:OK
>> test_tailcall_count:PASS:tailcall 0 nsec
>> test_tailcall_count:PASS:tailcall retval 0 nsec
>> test_tailcall_count:PASS:tailcall count 0 nsec
>> test_tailcall_count:FAIL:tailcall count unexpected tailcall count:
>> actual 32 != expected 33
>> test_tailcall_count:PASS:tailcall 0 nsec
>> test_tailcall_count:PASS:tailcall retval 0 nsec
>> #448/3 tailcalls/tailcall_3:FAIL
>> #448/4 tailcalls/tailcall_4:OK
>> #448/5 tailcalls/tailcall_5:OK
>> #448/6 tailcalls/tailcall_6:OK
>> #448/7 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_1:OK
>> #448/8 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_2:OK
>> #448/9 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_3:OK
>> #448/10 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_4:OK
>> #448/11 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_5:OK
>> #448/12 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_6:OK
>> #448/13 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_fentry:OK
>> #448/14 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_fexit:OK
>> #448/15 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_fentry_fexit:OK
>> #448/16 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_fentry_entry:OK
>> #448/17 tailcalls/tailcall_poke:OK
>> #448/18 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_1:OK
>> #448/19 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_fentry:OK
>> #448/20 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_fexit:OK
>> #448/21 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_fentry_fexit:OK
>> #448/22 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_fentry_entry:OK
>> #448/23 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_2:OK
>> #448/24 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_3:OK
>> #448/25 tailcalls/tailcall_freplace:OK
>> #448/26 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_freplace:OK
>> #448/27 tailcalls/tailcall_failure:OK
>> #448/28 tailcalls/reject_tail_call_spin_lock:OK
>> #448/29 tailcalls/reject_tail_call_rcu_lock:OK
>> #448/30 tailcalls/reject_tail_call_preempt_lock:OK
>> #448/31 tailcalls/reject_tail_call_ref:OK
>> #448/32 tailcalls/tailcall_sleepable:OK
>> #448 tailcalls:FAIL
>>
>> All error logs:
>> tester_init:PASS:tester_log_buf 0 nsec
>> process_subtest:PASS:obj_open_mem 0 nsec
>> process_subtest:PASS:specs_alloc 0 nsec
>> test_tailcall_count:PASS:tailcall 0 nsec
>> test_tailcall_count:PASS:tailcall retval 0 nsec
>> test_tailcall_count:PASS:tailcall count 0 nsec
>> test_tailcall_count:FAIL:tailcall count unexpected tailcall count:
>> actual 32 != expected 33
>> test_tailcall_count:PASS:tailcall 0 nsec
>> test_tailcall_count:PASS:tailcall retval 0 nsec
>> #448/3 tailcalls/tailcall_3:FAIL
>> #448 tailcalls:FAIL
>> Summary: 0/31 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 1 FAILED
>>
>> Regards,
>> Venkat.
>>
>>> On 16 Feb 2026, at 2:38 PM, Hari Bathini <hbathini@linux.ibm.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Test whether tail call count is incorrectly accounted for, when the
>>> tail call fails due to a missing BPF program.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Hari Bathini <hbathini@linux.ibm.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> - powerpc64 BPF JIT has been incorrectly accounting for tailcall count
>>> even when BPF program to tailcall into is missing. A simple change
>>> to one of the tailcall selftests could have flagged it earlier.
>>>
>
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260216065639.1750181-2-hbathini@linux.ibm.com/
>>>
Above patch was not applied, during the test.
>
> Hi Venkat,
>
> Can you confirm if the above kernel patch was used or not?
Its with only below patch. Please refer git log.
git log
commit cb50b08d0c45e7f97e1364075a5ee399c63422d5 (HEAD -> master)
Author: Hari Bathini <hbathini@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Mon Feb 16 14:38:02 2026 +0530
selftests/bpf: test accounting of tail calls when prog is NULL
Test whether tail call count is incorrectly accounted for, when the
tail call fails due to a missing BPF program.
Signed-off-by: Hari Bathini <hbathini@linux.ibm.com>
commit 0f2acd3148e0ef42bdacbd477f90e8533f96b2ac (origin/master, origin/HEAD)
Merge: 26a4cfaff82a a16ac6ca46d6
Author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Sun Feb 15 19:45:00 2026 -0800
Regards,
Venkat.
>
> - Hari
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-02-16 15:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-02-16 9:08 [PATCH] selftests/bpf: test accounting of tail calls when prog is NULL Hari Bathini
2026-02-16 11:08 ` Venkat
2026-02-16 11:11 ` Hari Bathini
2026-02-16 15:01 ` Venkat Rao Bagalkote [this message]
2026-02-21 3:48 ` Venkat Rao Bagalkote
2026-02-17 12:53 ` Ilya Leoshkevich
2026-02-20 6:34 ` Hari Bathini
2026-02-25 1:20 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
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=0cbbc97a-ebb8-41d8-ac88-2a954279d10c@linux.ibm.com \
--to=venkat88@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=hbathini@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
/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