On 2026/9/18 13:05, [email protected] wrote: >> In test_global_percpu_data.c, dump_percpu_data is defined after two >> non-autoload SEC("?kprobe") programs (verifier_strncmp and >> verifier_snprintf). If bpftool does not skip non-autoload programs when >> generating light skeletons, dump_percpu_data.prog_fd is left invalid or >> unpopulated. >> >> Factor out a test_global_percpu_data_iter_fd() helper that operates >> directly on prog/map file descriptors, and add an iter_lskel subtest to >> verify that dump_percpu_data is properly loaded and executes correctly >> when using the light skeleton. >> >> Fixes: 4c9241bd731a ("selftests/bpf: Add tests to verify global percpu data") >> Fixes: 1ed2294b31fc ("selftests/bpf: Test verifier log for global percpu >> data") >> Signed-off-by: Thiébaud Weksteen <[email protected]> > > Are the Fixes: tags appropriate for this commit? This patch only adds new > test coverage (a new iter_lskel subtest) and refactors existing test code > (factoring out test_global_percpu_data_iter_fd() with no behavioral change > to the existing "iter" subtest). It doesn't fix anything that > 4c9241bd731a or 1ed2294b31fc got wrong. > > The bug being tested is in bpftool, introduced by d510296d331a > ("bpftool: Use syscall/loader program in "prog load" and "gen skeleton" > command.") and actually fixed by the two preceding patches in this series > (202ee90dee368 and 843762e6f4665), both of which already carry the correct > Fixes: d510296d331a tag.
Agreed. The Fixes: tags of this patch can be dropped. Others lgtm: Acked-by: Leon Hwang <[email protected]> > > There's also a backport concern. The Fixes: tags make this patch a > candidate for AUTOSEL/stable pickup independently of 202ee90dee368 and > 843762e6f4665. Since this is the last patch of the series, backporting it > alone would land the new iter_lskel subtest in a tree with the unfixed > bpftool, where skel->progs.dump_percpu_data.prog_fd is left at 0 and > bpf_link_create(0, 0, BPF_TRACE_ITER, &opts) fails. The subtest would fail > by construction. > > Should the Fixes: tags be removed, or if they're intended to be kept, > should the dependency on the two bpftool patches be stated via > Cc: <[email protected]> prerequisite lines? > > > --- > 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/35306404663
