From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-173.mta0.migadu.com (out-173.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.173]) (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 93CD63B9617 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2026 19:13:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.173 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769022820; cv=none; b=jdIFZwplrZXaiWHh9V09S1qPawIolQ5/2AFcHu1ZMK7znKkXwXrM+HbcprGUdrCCW24wNC3jN31ZdZQkbBk7/kUyJkzb0aqrGGASnzeNYwtzEau6jYO4IhuXHKPA8qKSj9xLtG5tsKOiu80xcjsDmv+Fq57LXOVId6RwoCet6Xw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769022820; c=relaxed/simple; bh=vjOVXSo3T85HEyir+H+bPxqWVOrjA1RPvJMn1qN1v64=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=hZpiboBqSAWXavJsrqAIUUXsmyOOaRpLhr4GgZmxVnDQk3eerYrQft3QtAN9jneGATggxTQBUyr7B596EeEbRijc+eEgJxPHSchsGytubUIiIpynuPQOFUC9EYrMp6HSKIER6VWKDYz3bpf3wpvssCDxdgpEACSVWlhrf0pxpuM= 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=V0ZyBtvy; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.173 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="V0ZyBtvy" Message-ID: <4423cc78-ec0c-4171-bf34-cc9b6596fa5a@linux.dev> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1769022815; 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=E99BhWiOtvsKj9LVOMwPQhY+2wWMRQYA7EVhZuxyw14=; b=V0ZyBtvyKJZdMGqTU0STyz8AP7VS5c8AEuDECKwstnTitLABAxUEHAO0njHeGLiKpo1twQ ya7whERJswcaLc3EURTQ6V8hrKIaShPgeu3eQw3MjLGYN9uyhuD0LpExN//l+7hqliPdAo Wkl6hFyh6efkq/Ly73mg86SKA7f4QSI= Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2026 11:13:29 -0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 4/4] selftests/bpf: Remove tests for prologue/epilogue with kfuncs To: Jakub Sitnicki Cc: Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , John Fastabend , Andrii Nakryiko , Eduard Zingerman , Song Liu , Yonghong Song , KP Singh , Stanislav Fomichev , Hao Luo , Jiri Olsa , Amery Hung , netdev@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@cloudflare.com, bpf@vger.kernel.org References: <20260119-skb-meta-bpf-emit-call-from-prologue-v1-0-e8b88d6430d8@cloudflare.com> <20260119-skb-meta-bpf-emit-call-from-prologue-v1-4-e8b88d6430d8@cloudflare.com> <87o6mnthwf.fsf@cloudflare.com> 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: <87o6mnthwf.fsf@cloudflare.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT On 1/21/26 1:49 AM, Jakub Sitnicki wrote: > On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 03:48 PM -08, Martin KaFai Lau wrote: >> On 1/19/26 11:53 AM, Jakub Sitnicki wrote: >>> Remove pro_epilogue_with_kfunc test program and its supporting code in >>> bpf_testmod. This test exercised calling kfuncs from prologue and epilogue, >>> which is no longer supported after the switch to direct helper calls. >> >> Is it easy to change it to test calling helper in pro/epilogue? > > I gave it a shot and the obstacle is that bpf_cgroup_from_id and > bpf_cgroup_release are not exported symbols, so they can't be referred > to from bpf_testmod. We'd have to move the whole thing to lib/test_bpf > so it's a built-in. I was thinking of creating a helper in bpf_testmod.c but then noticed it may fail in the JIT that needs bpf_jit_supports_far_kfunc_call(). A cleaner way could be to use the existing pro/epilogue in bpf_qdisc ops. I was wondering if the __xlated test here could be quickly adapted in patch 4 but it seems that's not the case. The existing bpf_qdisc is testing it quietly without the __xlated, so no need to hold up this set. For patch 3 and 4, Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau