From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) (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 E5A882D0C9C; Mon, 16 Feb 2026 11:12:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=148.163.158.5 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1771240334; cv=none; b=hMfwedTceU60BF2JOk0zWsK8NmYUrJos2eEj3U4fJ5qaKmLibFW/VA3nL3v9UiD39quUuqpzRyu1VrcZUOF9aWkE40xCMFjoxLRRNWtEGMbS/qttLZbKRCfHpb7x0Mrv2rHIWienb05Te8eZsCfaIMrWIGwMP+4J5arazIhP8Wo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1771240334; c=relaxed/simple; bh=sG0zyeSMi9chg7xm/eKPf7aK4KbLO1eb+m74GSII5tc=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=fS83oRyHYZ0YGlNCeqTz8eTwboKgk4ipGt9uhT85d1tr00DmA/wjFLoFzwJCg1ueErea9iG2V9d0ezFIRiYGcNgNc7NdITC6LyJ0BXAHzwuZLv3bS0kFEtWy3+d0beJRoaBbqtq0hKf5tMW9ya+0tqveXEZsid5TxfIOzwS4xzw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.b=aCyXu6c1; arc=none smtp.client-ip=148.163.158.5 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.b="aCyXu6c1" Received: from pps.filterd (m0360072.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.18.1.11/8.18.1.11) with ESMTP id 61FM1J6F3669128; Mon, 16 Feb 2026 11:11:55 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to; s=pp1; bh=j2NPHD 6edXAJ5Ecp2/ZrT8ESVG/JNWK3blfHLS2Ld5Y=; b=aCyXu6c1NF4Zl9UE7UXebo syyg9Q6wvVYJn97VeBtBLbbX6UGoY94Y+LGqoDOCLUzNE+W0+jCHvHplFb7gH0Ex oiXxTu+3wZsNhcAYhSUQLJDf5Gyjv8lezaxd26b37K919wT1EDavc3Q0EcFe0NC/ uaCR3YCoW0+i6byR7OLh6dc4qMaI4RVHGJJvCwB1ECQeBFflRckLqmZNbj0fcU68 74uqpQQfQ8WA8BHdpqxrGeYqjovJ4jMYrnCtkz+/YX4cjUC8nv66M4HAxa1DlcjS t+htSopI0wCrSW6Ofb6k4OSvPoA/z8NbYZM7B5ERXqUphHO4GSP6+1fWmLQn75pg == Received: from ppma12.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (dc.9e.1632.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [50.22.158.220]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 4cajcj6vkk-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 16 Feb 2026 11:11:55 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pps.filterd (ppma12.dal12v.mail.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma12.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTP id 61G6IRsW012624; Mon, 16 Feb 2026 11:11:54 GMT Received: from smtprelay05.fra02v.mail.ibm.com ([9.218.2.225]) by ppma12.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 4cb3crw7wy-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 16 Feb 2026 11:11:54 +0000 Received: from smtpav06.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav06.fra02v.mail.ibm.com [10.20.54.105]) by smtprelay05.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 61GBBqIe28049698 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 16 Feb 2026 11:11:53 GMT Received: from smtpav06.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7E4620040; Mon, 16 Feb 2026 11:11:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav06.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB58E2004B; Mon, 16 Feb 2026 11:11:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.78.106.17] (unknown [9.78.106.17]) by smtpav06.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Feb 2026 11:11:51 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <1463952f-ccdc-4496-8041-12fb79ef3e9e@linux.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2026 16:41:50 +0530 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests/bpf: test accounting of tail calls when prog is NULL To: Venkat Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , Andrii Nakryiko , linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, Shuah Khan References: <20260216090802.1805655-1-hbathini@linux.ibm.com> <3A7B8B6A-C91D-4322-907E-22E6268F469E@linux.ibm.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Hari Bathini In-Reply-To: <3A7B8B6A-C91D-4322-907E-22E6268F469E@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: m_Xjiuan8muSF8zbRpT-uP0ZtmPcaElh X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.4 cv=Md9hep/f c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=6992fb7b cx=c_pps a=bLidbwmWQ0KltjZqbj+ezA==:117 a=bLidbwmWQ0KltjZqbj+ezA==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=HzLeVaNsDn8A:10 a=VkNPw1HP01LnGYTKEx00:22 a=Mpw57Om8IfrbqaoTuvik:22 a=GgsMoib0sEa3-_RKJdDe:22 a=VwQbUJbxAAAA:8 a=VnNF1IyMAAAA:8 a=__EkIHEiJ7JET0mok7gA:9 a=3ZKOabzyN94A:10 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details-Enc: AW1haW4tMjYwMjE2MDA5NCBTYWx0ZWRfXxo/w2ktvyoP8 oC/6jCU6E9TZrRqNtdWRLaEUK1XLl0BctsaP5xTDFSwBZI54UsK5gBfHh7h4u70UOU8W1RbQLMp dCg6xf1XwEuV0+plGX2xtM7lhccxYwYR6HUAgl9tAkJqXvwp5NXDJIZTSBybpCFFkilOM5EQXgi +1LnSRuEG4IWeCLgOXLOnHn4n584Wny47XhbGGxVhdUhJsOl4liM/tudPXvMB75FPiNGlH7udt9 BwwHEVVpc+2WwCIIH1Nl/FiMlJFdqGT+WP/qzN0kSgSTlM4o90FE+opq89TUl4dyN+fzW6pkvwQ D+Jtivs4lL/q8wCgF7E4HRWvN4sGRiBqqGOmZUpTWawJLQhiJNQvMvUpVkPpFvPkyu7NPK+lF4k TV8hpyiB0RSEx+9lzYxb3FRQk5YJ9lhZwbvxF2yk94eZ+etAA5SjduN8fNbdPfW5QprkMc+eNEI xg36I7jGWUf1fCS2Uag== X-Proofpoint-GUID: m_Xjiuan8muSF8zbRpT-uP0ZtmPcaElh X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1121,Hydra:6.1.51,FMLib:17.12.100.49 definitions=2026-02-16_04,2026-02-16_01,2025-10-01_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 clxscore=1015 impostorscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 spamscore=0 adultscore=0 priorityscore=1501 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=typeunknown authscore=0 authtc= authcc= route=outbound adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.22.0-2601150000 definitions=main-2602160094 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 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 >> --- >> >> - 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/ Hi Venkat, Can you confirm if the above kernel patch was used or not? - Hari