From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (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 2859E258EE9; Sat, 5 Sep 2026 07:45:35 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788594337; cv=none; b=H3MUhLMtZabQGTstXBMNwZ822EyO6cp6OXI1nNB9WdGnmdEKBclQaf/zteeaSxavvnkepvq6gDOqIAEPvzrbL6tdIRCXbZByAy/8LHdtDY6LR5HZZ37/QwSBHVjkgHaklxXfkKHnXdlN0RMF1OSy5cKL7Qke81tIFH0ISFB6Q6w= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788594337; c=relaxed/simple; bh=F8I23AU+j838hjXhl1ya9Hoh94IUJB6RgV6WyOcUdpY=; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References: Subject:From:To:Cc:Date; b=IzxzQ3DAfQ5y9UhLtx7WELhw9OoMnMPQNrs/EZOTR/3Uc/eQh70Wab3bc19hB1ms1iMG1PJKhM9ee+YEMMagWwruAUtvCqhjETfvtRDSRMSDRbRPh9dwdMxCiwxDSQWcxczkI4h9yM58BFRzPO8bL6mJoDze3Ryss2Rz/t9HBLo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=dQ0j8Z/X; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="dQ0j8Z/X" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8E6531F00A3D; Sat, 5 Sep 2026 07:45:34 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1788594335; bh=7yOxbGjvD5wE0Hp6BWVA5Rm3CoQLfyp/woX5BV7pxRk=; h=In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date; b=dQ0j8Z/Xlikm1kfjAyCjsTDBJEGEqnfRe88eQVGnQeuofnhc8atPho0+xkyxlztfu bNwZlfsv9iXQ649b14RT2AUFJfXQdUh/9sIruDdNyjdsLF0DjER7yEW4DJgANFzrDm s26tzieG9TOc1wqFKN/FCZO0rXZYiQ80ma42Dl+BnD9bawuWVCidUETJUkjjYmrZpC FIWHuYup0D89otgLZBlbfzpzGdYY9O2cBa/9QI99fw5WoKTJA0opFEb4j8+HaeTFAd GBA4YUY1yz2vzwXobLfaR8K/+i9+uEXbuOtdnrgFzNBPESkYt2ykwdImL5h7up4EZV JoA6i2hcg2nFQ== Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0711090133430070351==" Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <5e50a375b8cc6ff27c370db71783041b6ceebdf6a014a008bb2ecbfb2dca88ca@mail.kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <20260905070409.4141522-4-pulehui@huaweicloud.com> References: <20260905070409.4141522-4-pulehui@huaweicloud.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 3/3] selftests/bpf: Enable stack argument tests for RV64 From: bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org To: pulehui@huaweicloud.com,bpf@vger.kernel.org,linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,jiangfeng@kylinos.cn Cc: bjorn@kernel.org,ast@kernel.org,daniel@iogearbox.net,andrii@kernel.org,eddyz87@gmail.com,memxor@gmail.com,martin.lau@linux.dev,song@kernel.org,yonghong.song@linux.dev,jolsa@kernel.org,emil@etsalapatis.com,ihor.solodrai@linux.dev,puranjay@kernel.org,pjw@kernel.org,palmer@dabbelt.com,alex@ghiti.fr,pulehui@huawei.com,ast@kernel.org,andrii@kernel.org,daniel@iogearbox.net,martin.lau@kernel.org,eddyz87@gmail.com,yonghong.song@linux.dev,mason@kernel.org,ihor.solodrai@linux.dev Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2026 07:45:34 +0000 (UTC) --===============0711090133430070351== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Enable the stack argument selftests for RV64. The riscv guard is > restricted to __riscv_xlen == 64 since stack arguments are only > supported by the RV64 JIT. > > Keep the __BPF_FEATURE_STACK_ARGUMENT gate, defined by clang with > BPF stack argument support [1]. > > [1] https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/189060 > > Signed-off-by: Feng Jiang The changelog says "Enable the stack argument selftests for RV64", but one arch-gated stack-argument test remains on x86_64/arm64 only. Exhaustive list of every arch-gated stack-argument test in tools/testing/selftests/bpf: progs/btf__stack_arg_precision.c updated by this patch progs/btf__verifier_stack_arg_order.c updated by this patch progs/stack_arg.c updated by this patch progs/stack_arg_kfunc.c updated by this patch progs/stack_arg_precision.c updated by this patch progs/verifier_stack_arg.c updated by this patch progs/verifier_stack_arg_order.c updated by this patch progs/stack_arg_fail.c no arch gate - already runs progs/exceptions.c:383 intentionally left alone progs/arena_kfunc.c:219-230 not updated, not explained progs/exceptions.c is correctly left alone: DENYLIST.riscv64 lists 'exceptions' with the comment "JIT does not support exceptions", and arch/riscv/net/ implements no bpf_jit_supports_exceptions(). progs/arena_kfunc.c is not explained. It gates its stack-argument test with test_loader arch annotations rather than a preprocessor guard: #if defined(__BPF_FEATURE_ADDR_SPACE_CAST) && \ defined(__BPF_FEATURE_STACK_ARGUMENT) SEC("syscall") __arch_x86_64 __arch_arm64 __failure __msg("arena pointer cannot be a stack argument") int arena_arg_stack(void *ctx) test_loader.c skips any test whose arch mask does not contain the running arch, so arena_arg_stack stays skipped on RV64 after this patch. Does anything block it from running on RV64? bpf_jit_supports_arena() returns true on riscv64, DENYLIST.riscv64 contains only 'exceptions', and arena_arg_stack is a __failure test so it only needs the verifier to reach the "arena pointer cannot be a stack argument" check - which now happens on RV64 because the preceding commit makes bpf_jit_supports_stack_args() return true. Should __arch_riscv64 be added to progs/arena_kfunc.c's arena_arg_stack (and the #else dummy_test, which carries the same two annotations), or is there a reason it should stay on x86_64/arm64 only? --- 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/33952202002 --===============0711090133430070351==--