2026-09-17 11:06 UTC+1000 ~ Thiébaud Weksteen <[email protected]> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 3:49 PM Leon Hwang <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 9/9/26 12:24, Thiébaud Weksteen wrote: >>> In test_global_percpu_data.c, dump_percpu_data is defined after two >>> non-autoload SEC("?kprobe") programs (verifier_strncmp and >>> verifier_snprintf). Verify in test_global_percpu_data_lskel() that >>> lskel->progs.dump_percpu_data.prog_fd is properly populated (> 0) when >>> loaded via the light skeleton. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Thiébaud Weksteen <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> No changes since v1. >> >> The Fixes tags of v1 are dropped. >> >>> >>> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/global_data_init.c | 2 ++ >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/global_data_init.c >>> b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/global_data_init.c >>> index 7c539cbcf3a1..ebda60200b71 100644 >>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/global_data_init.c >>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/global_data_init.c >>> @@ -214,6 +214,8 @@ static void test_global_percpu_data_lskel(void) >>> lskel = test_global_percpu_data_lskel__open_and_load(); >>> if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(lskel, >>> "test_global_percpu_data_lskel__open_and_load")) >>> goto out; >>> + if (!ASSERT_GT(lskel->progs.dump_percpu_data.prog_fd, 0, >>> "dump_percpu_data.prog_fd")) >>> + goto out; >> >> When the light skeleton does not skip the non-autoload progs, >> lskel->progs.dump_percpu_data.prog_fd is 0, actually. >> >> But, theoretically, this ASSERT_GT() is not good enough to prove the FD >> is the correct FD of dump_percpu_data prog. >> >> How about running the iter subtest against the lskel? Factor out >> test_global_percpu_data_iter_fd() helper first. Then, add an iter >> subtest using lskel. >> When factoring out test_global_percpu_data_iter_fd() helper, pls change >> 'do { } while (0);' to '{ /* no-op */ }' btw. >> > > Thanks for the review Leon. That sounds good, I can implement these > changes. I am just waiting for Quentin's feedback on the first patch > in this series before spinning up a new patch set. >
Apologies for the delay. Patch 1 looks good to me, I just posted some minor suggestions regarding comments. Thank you! Quentin
