From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Andrea Righi" <arighi@nvidia.com>
Cc: sched-ext@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 sched_ext/for-7.4] sched_ext: cid: Represent clusters explicitly
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2026 21:34:37 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260926213437.5FAC91F000FF@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260926212017.3351797-1-arighi@nvidia.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Critical] bpf: scx_bpf_cid_topo UAPI break due to struct scx_cid_topo size change
--
commit fb59a730e3e34d8a0c1fda134fb4459d8183c802
Author: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
sched_ext: cid: Represent clusters explicitly
This commit adds explicit cluster representation to the sched_ext CID
topology. It modifies the cid calculation logic and updates
struct scx_cid_topo to include cluster_cid and cluster_idx.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260926152306.3190774-1-arighi@nvidia.com
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/ext/types.h b/kernel/sched/ext/types.h
> index 943d8d429a2c9..765d7b9208144 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/ext/types.h
> +++ b/kernel/sched/ext/types.h
[ ... ]
> @@ -88,6 +95,8 @@ struct scx_cid_topo {
> s32 node_idx;
> s32 shard_cid;
> s32 shard_idx;
> + s32 cluster_cid;
> + s32 cluster_idx;
> };
[Severity: Critical]
Will adding cluster_cid and cluster_idx break existing BPF schedulers that
call scx_bpf_cid_topo()?
By increasing the size of struct scx_cid_topo from 32 to 40 bytes, the
expected argument size for the kfunc changes. Since scx_bpf_cid_topo()
lacks a size-aware __sz parameter or compatibility wrapper:
kernel/sched/ext/cid.c:scx_bpf_cid_topo() {
...
*out__uninit = topo[cid];
}
Could the BPF verifier strictly reject older BPF schedulers passing a
32-byte allocation because out__uninit demands the current kernel's BTF size?
Furthermore, if the check were somehow bypassed, would the assignment cause
an 8-byte out-of-bounds write into BPF stack or map memory?
Does this constitute a hard ABI break for existing userspace binaries since
they lack a deprecation path or versioning wrapper?
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260926212017.3351797-1-arighi@nvidia.com?part=1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-26 21:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-26 21:20 [PATCH v2 sched_ext/for-7.4] sched_ext: cid: Represent clusters explicitly Andrea Righi
2026-09-26 21:34 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-09-26 21:59 ` Andrea Righi
2026-09-26 23:27 ` Tejun Heo
2026-09-27 6:12 ` Andrea Righi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260926213437.5FAC91F000FF@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=arighi@nvidia.com \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=sched-ext@lists.linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox