From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-179.mta1.migadu.com (out-179.mta1.migadu.com [95.215.58.179]) (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 80D2CB640 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2026 01:11:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.179 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772673074; cv=none; b=l/lBfTlcwp+C4TAiIEz5/f+jODkYl6ecvvX25XtVRXK9WMqdj67Zz5BVA4vSaRmlhNftlmtCFr783Q4UyQCMlGbvC67EYFgQcoV7onuXxFwnWS0SHkmmD/m0/rCORVdAM7W3AnzyNjLqKP8QJvdLm/IgWTedqfoYLdPajWQDkvQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772673074; c=relaxed/simple; bh=6j9+bYJ9UVL6qrFbs8/OUsNVswHG1yIys0c/DuTaeTE=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=Eoxf+2ryvO/iA9kpencs2mVxAL+tBjkSqGnupb52zr4P8LCG5lpeym7SbG/LquEtDimDQ0SzOn7IzhFG7fmK8NJR46jmZIV1NwXjsf3hWOp5r6Dn9zuG0seKvBdqTialyu1lujmMlfgt0OBNpcAO1a1ca+0oqY72I5kURhPhM9M= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=lD9BDUNx; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.179 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="lD9BDUNx" Message-ID: <682b4e08-7c21-4616-b1cc-65923c3ae09a@linux.dev> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1772673070; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=PhDbeBcQSmf2HN3hAelrmzZ/D4QuioH83c5OluSuGY4=; b=lD9BDUNxnIhtn+vP6DoCTYsQ/ojmfnUoHTsuh0ygyT5TliZprRNCnU7Jsh7SemQRepTfXB 7W6Hqt9HHId+I8Za/BxFw7z8AM4n08K4sgHKB+Tv+YOeIGKPv8iP1hrr2eOx4poqQ28DWZ iB0C3ZW2RipayWGiBzWNmSK6S22gWfM= Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2026 17:11:02 -0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add selftests for the invocation of bpf_lwt_xmit_push_encap To: Leon Hwang , Feng Yang Cc: davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, horms@kernel.org, posk@google.com, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org, eddyz87@gmail.com, bpf@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org References: <20260304094429.168521-1-yangfeng59949@163.com> <20260304094429.168521-3-yangfeng59949@163.com> <8f6755ed-d2ae-42ba-8052-2e6fba3d5c69@linux.dev> Content-Language: en-US X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Martin KaFai Lau In-Reply-To: <8f6755ed-d2ae-42ba-8052-2e6fba3d5c69@linux.dev> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT On 3/4/26 2:33 AM, Leon Hwang wrote: > On 4/3/26 17:44, Feng Yang wrote: >> From: Feng Yang >> >> Calling bpf_lwt_xmit_push_encap will not cause a crash when dst is missing. >> >> Signed-off-by: Feng Yang >> --- >> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/lwt_misc.c | 9 ++++++++ >> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/lwt_misc.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++++ >> 2 files changed, 31 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/lwt_misc.c >> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/lwt_misc.c >> > > Unnecessary to create new files. > > Move the adding test to verifier_lwt.c. prog_tests/verifier.c will run > the test. It is actually the change from v9 to v10. I think leaving it separate is better. It is not testing the verifier, so logically it does not fit in verifier_lwt.c. It probably won't be the last fix for test_run+lwt, so separating it should be useful going forward.