Re: [RFC bpf-next 05/12] bpf: Add multi tracing attach types

[Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Feb 03, 2026 at 10:13:53AM +0000, bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org wrote:
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > index 6b62b6d57..fb52ba2f7 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> > @@ -25069,7 +25074,8 @@ static int check_attach_btf_id(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
> >  		return 0;
> >  	} else if (prog->expected_attach_type == BPF_TRACE_ITER) {
> >  		return bpf_iter_prog_supported(prog);
> > -	}
> > +	} else if (is_tracing_multi(prog->expected_attach_type))
> > +		return prog->type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING ? 0 : -EINVAL;
> 
> This isn't a bug, but should this branch have braces for consistency with the
> preceding branches in the same if/else chain? The BPF_TRACE_RAW_TP and
> BPF_TRACE_ITER branches both use braces.

right, will add it, thnx

jirka

> 
> 
> ---
> AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug.
> See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md
> 
> CI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/21625440628
> 
> AI-authorship-score: low
> AI-authorship-explanation: The commit message contains natural colloquial language and personal attribution typical of human kernel developers, and the code follows established BPF patterns with typical human oversights in style consistency.
> issues-found: 1
> issue-severity-score: low
> issue-severity-explanation: Minor coding style inconsistency with missing braces in an else-if branch that does not affect functionality.