From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from dggsgout12.his.huawei.com (dggsgout12.his.huawei.com [45.249.212.56]) (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 1642F2E736E; Tue, 14 Jul 2026 02:01:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.56 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783994523; cv=none; b=SfMtsy1VEGeBDcpWf9MRIM3Rtd9ITRDHQtujMrIlxw6HCNDeIo4nKYv0CB4pUu2XMJoxe2qQmHL+vI6XEMxoq0F1sliYkAstBj2VT+nH3XS6adSzpEtcyyHX4257Ds7a2/PojLIqYe6aTD2Z95LdS5wQSuaG58tq6IlvRZHIt54= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783994523; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Y8VVOXI4u2UcVXHcTq+LOiwTobByBYfsMmNnohftf94=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=Q8gw6NZsLa6VS2heIC10E9UwtqGmec2iciGT6pVE9YMEyjGqJ/Tt385ADyMs1FwO3A9yVGlIcLAWQDXKX4f/eFmHUz8s7a76aYEhM9RvSKZQG3uF40U7LhBRaPfVU0TYxuWf+N+00vx8awL6brQk3oFNMZwSsaA5oi+veIefUXY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huaweicloud.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huaweicloud.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.56 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huaweicloud.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huaweicloud.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.163.177]) by dggsgout12.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTPS id 4gzjGG6JcFzKHML7; Tue, 14 Jul 2026 10:01:26 +0800 (CST) Received: from mail02.huawei.com (unknown [10.116.40.128]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB37440590; Tue, 14 Jul 2026 10:01:56 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.67.110.68] (unknown [10.67.110.68]) by APP4 (Coremail) with UTF8SMTPA id gCh0CgBXiVqTmFVq0_qgBA--.46930S2; Tue, 14 Jul 2026 10:01:56 +0800 (CST) Message-ID: <3b418aba-d65b-46de-8924-b02bef5f95f7@huaweicloud.com> Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2026 10:01:55 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add testcases for callback with tailcall Content-Language: en-US To: Eduard Zingerman , bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, =?UTF-8?B?QmrDtnJuIFTDtnBlbA==?= , Daniel Borkmann Cc: Alexei Starovoitov , Andrii Nakryiko , Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi , Yonghong Song , Martin KaFai Lau , John Fastabend , Song Liu , Jiri Olsa , Emil Tsalapatis , Pu Lehui References: <20260711104727.4023420-1-pulehui@huaweicloud.com> <20260711104727.4023420-3-pulehui@huaweicloud.com> <6befa724e4fdc197f4a603246b4f95b65748882f.camel@gmail.com> From: Pu Lehui In-Reply-To: <6befa724e4fdc197f4a603246b4f95b65748882f.camel@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-CM-TRANSID:gCh0CgBXiVqTmFVq0_qgBA--.46930S2 X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvJXoW7CryrGw1xGw1UXFWrKF1UAwb_yoW8tr1UpF y8Z34YgryfZ3WfZF47Wr48WF98AFs5JFWYkr18JryFyrs7uFyfWFnFkFW8KFZa93yFv3s0 vw10vr1xAws5JaDanT9S1TB71UUUUU7qnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDU0xBIdaVrnRJUUUvFb4IE77IF4wAFF20E14v26r4j6ryUM7CY07I20VC2zVCF04k2 6cxKx2IYs7xG6rWj6s0DM7CIcVAFz4kK6r1j6r18M28lY4IEw2IIxxk0rwA2F7IY1VAKz4 vEj48ve4kI8wA2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_JFI_Gr1l84ACjcxK6xIIjxv20xvEc7Cj xVAFwI0_Cr0_Gr1UM28EF7xvwVC2z280aVAFwI0_Gr1j6F4UJwA2z4x0Y4vEx4A2jsIEc7 CjxVAFwI0_Cr1j6rxdM2AIxVAIcxkEcVAq07x20xvEncxIr21l5I8CrVACY4xI64kE6c02 F40Ex7xfMcIj6xIIjxv20xvE14v26r1j6r18McIj6I8E87Iv67AKxVWUJVW8JwAm72CE4I kC6x0Yz7v_Jr0_Gr1lF7xvr2IY64vIr41lFIxGxcIEc7CjxVA2Y2ka0xkIwI1lc7CjxVAa w2AFwI0_Jw0_GFyl42xK82IYc2Ij64vIr41l4I8I3I0E4IkC6x0Yz7v_Jr0_Gr1lx2IqxV Aqx4xG67AKxVWUJVWUGwC20s026x8GjcxK67AKxVWUGVWUWwC2zVAF1VAY17CE14v26r1q 6r43MIIYrxkI7VAKI48JMIIF0xvE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Jr0_JF4lIxAIcVC0I7IYx2IY6x kF7I0E14v26r4j6F4UMIIF0xvE42xK8VAvwI8IcIk0rVWUJVWUCwCI42IY6I8E87Iv67AK xVWUJVW8JwCI42IY6I8E87Iv6xkF7I0E14v26r4j6r4UJbIYCTnIWIevJa73UjIFyTuYvj xUF1v3UUUUU X-CM-SenderInfo: psxovxtxl6x35dzhxuhorxvhhfrp/ Hi Eduard, Thanks for reviewing. On 2026/7/14 6:12, Eduard Zingerman wrote: > On Sat, 2026-07-11 at 10:47 +0000, Pu Lehui wrote: > > [...] > >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tailcalls.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tailcalls.c >> index a5a226d0104c..c66037162da5 100644 >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tailcalls.c >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tailcalls.c > > [...] > >>  void test_tailcalls(void) >>  { >>   if (test__start_subtest("tailcall_1")) >> @@ -1967,4 +1973,5 @@ void test_tailcalls(void) >>   test_tailcall_cgrp_storage_no_storage_leaf(); >>   if (test__start_subtest("tailcall_cgrp_storage_no_storage_bridge")) >>   test_tailcall_cgrp_storage_no_storage_bridge(); >> + test_tailcall_callback(); > > Please use test__start_subtest(). I use `RUN_TESTS(tailcall_callback)` above, so it will parse subtest base on `__description(desc)` or test func_proto. Also, it will make sense to test only by `test_progs -a tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_callback` But if use `test__start_subtest`, it will show double test items: #480/37 tailcalls/tailcall_cgrp_storage_no_storage_bridge:OK #480/38 tailcalls/test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_callback:OK <-- #480/39 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_callback:OK <-- #480 tailcalls:OK Summary: 1/39 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED > >>  } >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall_callback.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall_callback.c >> new file mode 100644 >> index 000000000000..504d8e7a6996 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall_callback.c > > [...] > >> +/* callback involving 1 subprog with tail call is rejected */ >> +SEC("tc") >> +__failure __msg("cannot tail call within callback") >> +int tailcall_bpf2bpf_callback_1(struct __sk_buff *skb) >> +{ >> + clobber_regs_stack(); >> + >> + bpf_loop(1, callback_loop_2, &skb, 0); >> + return 0; >> +} > > I think having all three is a bit redundant, > let's settle on tailcall_bpf2bpf_callback_1? make sense to me