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 05ABF22256F; Fri, 13 Mar 2026 09:30:15 +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=1773394217; cv=none; b=JMqEAM6pv9b9SKwbE7ASIkC/36th3s6bNpZH+G56OgQsiBO99A73R9XtaGysbj6stEQtStw2fiRVKRTH8Z4UuATpD49eLnxYPIVFhBVplIgUjWtHcVSn7UAYdzqaG1pxyYHTmF5lKRnO2WHQd/AEq5PhEXbGwFmNbHZrYfnoaTM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773394217; c=relaxed/simple; bh=qc05WWl7Lm9nFXBtakuH0KvtMf5pk/h1eBlPEav4eoM=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=a4kGqKCNBBY+PmhQ2MS5Kk7dHzC7pQpXIJnxDzFfqXghrscETR82YOEwf34eEg3cnm7Xg3QhD+1DwS6FT8CLgyGOscW3DrQ9NtHnPlqs7dg+fz36GrYFNU73M95NZUoxgO3r5UQ0LF8/3cFKsqBFeTlscKK3tMv4w2qPWCYeX+g= 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=VETa/Vrh; 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="VETa/Vrh" Received: from pps.filterd (m0353725.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.18.1.11/8.18.1.11) with ESMTP id 62D6ZZER2206305; Fri, 13 Mar 2026 09:29:57 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=HE5Qi3 EihYLD8YY4FpHuo1qkorI6ypCTOKTEtMLwtPE=; b=VETa/Vrh++h4coO1YfSlnp yhuaT0ftUwRy+uWGwlvIDYctkWDxAnH5I1GPqlOYS9mmlTrAsrEQHLgqJeevExVH Cqu/bKawYnJnnojM1AUdj4RW+tvsQztlQCquVKdIe8z0KuWXZL1najqspS6+YK6s 6SKIbSKdTjjiSNhsi3Anl3WihxoXaPErToNZ6pYTRps8rl0OoxU2Bt1b1htCgGWt GEtQ6C0uFWzAp8SGaiOkN9gY4E6glhr1SYSZMixdKFmn745hzAGWMv/qw2n/gKoj XSlyS4PP1Wk9uZKbhsTtNoUI1TJA7cQdhP8oBR8a0KgG5VsFI1iM2/SzQ1ub8WsQ == Received: from ppma13.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (dd.9e.1632.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [50.22.158.221]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 4cuh98es5n-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 13 Mar 2026 09:29:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pps.filterd (ppma13.dal12v.mail.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma13.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTP id 62D5O8XI025686; Fri, 13 Mar 2026 09:29:56 GMT Received: from smtprelay05.fra02v.mail.ibm.com ([9.218.2.225]) by ppma13.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 4cuha8e1ey-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 13 Mar 2026 09:29:56 +0000 Received: from smtpav03.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav03.fra02v.mail.ibm.com [10.20.54.102]) by smtprelay05.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 62D9TsZT46334426 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 13 Mar 2026 09:29:54 GMT Received: from smtpav03.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFDDD2004F; Fri, 13 Mar 2026 09:29:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav03.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F2DC20043; Fri, 13 Mar 2026 09:29:53 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.78.106.17] (unknown [9.78.106.17]) by smtpav03.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 13 Mar 2026 09:29:53 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2026 14:59:52 +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 bpf-next v2] selftests/bpf: improve test coverage for kfunc call To: Yonghong Song , bpf@vger.kernel.org Cc: Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , Andrii Nakryiko , Shuah Khan , linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org References: <20260312080113.843408-1-hbathini@linux.ibm.com> <02e68ebf-5782-4632-aed8-0026a3aab96b@linux.dev> Content-Language: en-US From: Hari Bathini In-Reply-To: <02e68ebf-5782-4632-aed8-0026a3aab96b@linux.dev> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.4 cv=M+pA6iws c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=69b3d915 cx=c_pps a=AfN7/Ok6k8XGzOShvHwTGQ==:117 a=AfN7/Ok6k8XGzOShvHwTGQ==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=Yq5XynenixoA:10 a=VkNPw1HP01LnGYTKEx00:22 a=RnoormkPH1_aCDwRdu11:22 a=V8glGbnc2Ofi9Qvn3v5h:22 a=VnNF1IyMAAAA:8 a=wFA0YCTz-keeHaNuyW8A:9 a=3ZKOabzyN94A:10 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 X-Proofpoint-GUID: uNo_lfeklqp90At1W4DnGwbnh_K-iSrO X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details-Enc: AW1haW4tMjYwMzEzMDA2OSBTYWx0ZWRfX0vxJCrOZ0oPL arfsMnBfTWl4syhgNkBS3wvrnCN1Nw1KK7nKDxfMPLa0Mxrai+WOUq9LjP1f9nYoyC3U75ImK4w 3uaoGp2YbsIKRgYw4kB/UazYPTKKj9jUyWTOCU95CKvOfrYZZzQt4F5/M7kUPsgiAB1/VK80eL6 Y0tB6O+cC6p5nuwILb/lfwW/jmisz2z1YrG/hfsSG6/0UtQcv4+Sdsp2J/p2/4VPEo5D94H8VWi X6WWKikcH4F8720rOOR6fq4mv4zk8Sv3jgSCrRfr0JfO51XWkEcZUYXFcrmhTCfO6Xp6eNOq7bj zIQy8DYmYRKwzn95bzau48mEXzgBNAUPAeOD+F9DXUvWvJxPLehm/QmfHIEDidSVAWYPBsfIP2+ 8ut3vffFCG0JzLT5A06O3Ewk0N/83i06w/c9mCvE4qh4MJhBQpekxTqw2uTNJfRphy7CaSeWsDA 3aY1jNIfrSCk4sXf+KQ== X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: uNo_lfeklqp90At1W4DnGwbnh_K-iSrO X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1143,Hydra:6.1.51,FMLib:17.12.100.49 definitions=2026-03-13_01,2026-03-12_01,2025-10-01_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 lowpriorityscore=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 priorityscore=1501 impostorscore=0 phishscore=0 clxscore=1015 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 malwarescore=0 classifier=typeunknown authscore=0 authtc= authcc= route=outbound adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.22.0-2603050001 definitions=main-2603130069 On 12/03/26 11:52 pm, Yonghong Song wrote: > > > On 3/12/26 1:01 AM, Hari Bathini wrote: >> On powerpc, immediate load instructions are sign extended. In case >> of unsigned types, arguments should be explicitly zero-extended by >> the caller. For kfunc call, this needs to be handled in the JIT code. >> In bpf_kfunc_call_test4(), that tests for sign-extension of signed >> argument types in kfunc calls, add some additional failure checks. >> And add bpf_kfunc_call_test5() to test zero-extension of unsigned >> argument types in kfunc calls. >> >> Signed-off-by: Hari Bathini > > LGTM with a nit below. > > Acked-by: Yonghong Song Thanks for the review, Yonghong. > >> --- >> >> Changes in v2: >> - Added asm version of the selftest for consistent testing across >>    different BPF ISA versions. >> - Added comments clearly stating the intent of the test cases. >> - Updated sign-extension selftest to have additional failure checks. >> >> >>   .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c     |  2 + >>   .../selftests/bpf/progs/kfunc_call_test.c     | 98 +++++++++++++++++++ >>   .../selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c    | 54 +++++++++- >>   .../bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod_kfunc.h        |  1 + >>   4 files changed, 154 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c b/ >> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c >> index f79c8e53cb3e..62f3fb79f5d1 100644 >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c >> @@ -74,6 +74,8 @@ static struct kfunc_test_params kfunc_tests[] = { >>       TC_TEST(kfunc_call_test1, 12), >>       TC_TEST(kfunc_call_test2, 3), >>       TC_TEST(kfunc_call_test4, -1234), >> +    TC_TEST(kfunc_call_test5, 0), >> +    TC_TEST(kfunc_call_test5_asm, 0), >>       TC_TEST(kfunc_call_test_ref_btf_id, 0), >>       TC_TEST(kfunc_call_test_get_mem, 42), >>       SYSCALL_TEST(kfunc_syscall_test, 0), >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/kfunc_call_test.c b/ >> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/kfunc_call_test.c >> index 8b86113a0126..5edc51564f71 100644 >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/kfunc_call_test.c >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/kfunc_call_test.c >> @@ -2,8 +2,106 @@ >>   /* Copyright (c) 2021 Facebook */ >>   #include >>   #include >> +#include "bpf_misc.h" >>   #include "../test_kmods/bpf_testmod_kfunc.h" >> +SEC("tc") >> +int kfunc_call_test5(struct __sk_buff *skb) >> +{ >> +    struct bpf_sock *sk = skb->sk; >> +    int ret; >> +    u32 val32; >> +    u16 val16; >> +    u8 val8; >> + >> +    if (!sk) >> +        return -1; >> + >> +    sk = bpf_sk_fullsock(sk); >> +    if (!sk) >> +        return -1; >> + >> +    /* >> +     * Test with constant values to verify zero-extension. >> +     * ISA-dependent BPF asm: >> +     *   With ALU32:    w1 = 0xFF; w2 = 0xFFFF; w3 = 0xFFFFffff >> +     *   Without ALU32: r1 = 0xFF; r2 = 0xFFFF; r3 = 0xFFFFffff >> +     * Both zero-extend to 64-bit before the kfunc call. >> +     */ >> +    ret = bpf_kfunc_call_test5(0xFF, 0xFFFF, 0xFFFFffffULL); > > Can we just use 0xFFFFffff instead of 0xFFFFffffULL? Alexei, can you confirm if I need to respin with this change? - Hari