From: bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org
To: mikeba@sentinelone.com,bpf@vger.kernel.org,ast@kernel.org,daniel@iogearbox.net,andrii@kernel.org
Cc: martin.lau@linux.dev,eddyz87@gmail.com,memxor@gmail.com,song@kernel.org,yonghong.song@linux.dev,jolsa@kernel.org,john.fastabend@gmail.com,emil@etsalapatis.com,ihor.solodrai@linux.dev,rostedt@goodmis.org,mhiramat@kernel.org,mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,jp.kobryn@linux.dev,linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org,linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,mikeba@sentinelone.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
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/5] bpf: Avoid per-CPU private stack in preemptible tracing progs
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2026 21:07:44 +0000 (UTC) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c7755fa3015ba1f5aa28207ec05173315ebcae0e662b07d78a084c8aeeb2e26a@mail.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261111-bpf-preempt-v2-r2-v2-1-9d8f6b952ad2@sentinelone.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2183 bytes --]
> bpf: Avoid per-CPU private stack in preemptible tracing progs
TL;DR: Selftest nits only: renamed "No private stack" tests in
verifier_private_stack.c keep old "private_stack" function names, and one
comment still describes the old mixed case.
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_private_stack.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_private_stack.c
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_private_stack.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_private_stack.c
[ ... ]
> SEC("raw_tp")
> -__description("Private stack, run, exception in main prog")
> +__description("No private stack, run, exception in main prog")
> __success __retval(1)
> __arch_x86_64
> -__jited(" movq %rdi, -0x200(%r9)")
> -__jited(" movl $0x1, %edi")
> -__jited(" pushq %r9")
> -__jited("...")
> -__jited(" callq")
> +__jited(" subq $0x200, %rsp")
> __naked void private_stack_run_exception_main_prog(void)
> {
this isn't a bug, but would it be clearer to rename
private_stack_run_exception_main_prog() to match its new "No private stack"
description?
The same applies to private_stack_run_exception_sub_prog() and
private_stack_subprog_throw(). Elsewhere in this file the function name
follows the description, for example no_private_stack_kprobe(), and
private_stack_returns() was renamed to big_stack_returns() in
verifier_unwind.c when its description changed.
[ ... ]
> /* Only the frame of the main prog counts, and it has nothing pushed at the call */
> SEC("raw_tp")
> -__description("Private stack, run, exception in subprog, no private stack in main prog")
> +__description("No private stack, run, exception in subprog with a large stack")
> __success __retval(3)
Also, the comment above no_private_stack_run_exception_sub_prog() still
describes the old mixed case, a main prog with nothing pushed at the call.
Now that neither frame has a private stack, should it be dropped or reworded?
---
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/43092697553
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-11-11 21:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-11-11 19:39 [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/5] bpf: Check recursion per task for preemptible programs Mike Bazov via B4 Relay
2026-11-11 19:39 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/5] bpf: Avoid per-CPU private stack in preemptible tracing progs Mike Bazov via B4 Relay
2026-11-11 21:07 ` bot+bpf-ci [this message]
2026-11-11 19:39 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/5] bpf: Check program recursion per task via bpf_ctx Mike Bazov via B4 Relay
2026-11-11 19:39 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/5] bpf: Check recursion per task for programs on syscall tracepoints Mike Bazov via B4 Relay
2026-11-11 19:39 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 4/5] selftests/bpf: Add trampoline and raw_tp preemption recursion test Mike Bazov via B4 Relay
2026-11-11 19:39 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 5/5] selftests/bpf: Test syscall tracepoint programs under preemption Mike Bazov via B4 Relay
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=c7755fa3015ba1f5aa28207ec05173315ebcae0e662b07d78a084c8aeeb2e26a@mail.kernel.org \
--to=bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=emil@etsalapatis.com \
--cc=ihor.solodrai@linux.dev \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=jp.kobryn@linux.dev \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=mason@kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=mikeba@sentinelone.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=yonghong.song@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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®