netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 13/16] selftests/bpf: Update task_local

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAMB2axO4=-b4PekKq3OzB8o3DeMM-0oCF7w_P2cfyHkYK4ab7A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2026 10:49:36 -0800
From: Amery Hung <ameryhung@...il.com>
To: bot+bpf-ci@...nel.org
Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, alexei.starovoitov@...il.com, 
	andrii@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, memxor@...il.com, 
	martin.lau@...nel.org, kpsingh@...nel.org, yonghong.song@...ux.dev, 
	song@...nel.org, haoluo@...gle.com, kernel-team@...a.com, ast@...nel.org, 
	eddyz87@...il.com, clm@...a.com, ihor.solodrai@...ux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 13/16] selftests/bpf: Update
 task_local_storage/recursion test

On Fri, Jan 30, 2026 at 9:33 PM <bot+bpf-ci@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/task_local_storage.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/task_local_storage.c
> > index 42e822ea3..559727b05 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/task_local_storage.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/task_local_storage.c
> > @@ -117,19 +117,19 @@ static void test_recursion(void)
>
> The comment just above this hunk at test_recursion() says:
>
>     /* Refer to the comment in BPF_PROG(on_update) for
>      * the explanation on the value 201 and 100.
>      */
>
> Should this comment be updated to reference the new expected values 200 and 1
> instead of the old values 201 and 100?

Indeed. Will update the commit message.

>
> >       map_fd = bpf_map__fd(skel->maps.map_a);
> >       err = bpf_map_lookup_elem(map_fd, &task_fd, &value);
> >       ASSERT_OK(err, "lookup map_a");
> > -     ASSERT_EQ(value, 201, "map_a value");
> > -     ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->nr_del_errs, 1, "bpf_task_storage_delete busy");
> > +     ASSERT_EQ(value, 200, "map_a value");
> > +     ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->nr_del_errs, 0, "bpf_task_storage_delete busy");
> >
> >       map_fd = bpf_map__fd(skel->maps.map_b);
> >       err = bpf_map_lookup_elem(map_fd, &task_fd, &value);
> >       ASSERT_OK(err, "lookup map_b");
> > -     ASSERT_EQ(value, 100, "map_b value");
> > +     ASSERT_EQ(value, 1, "map_b value");
>
> [ ... ]
>
>
> ---
> 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/21539340647
>
> AI-authorship-score: low
> AI-authorship-explanation: The commit message demonstrates deep BPF subsystem expertise with detailed execution flow diagrams that suggest human authorship from a domain expert.
> issues-found: 1
> issue-severity-score: low
> issue-severity-explanation: Stale comment in test code references old expected values, causing potential confusion but no functional impact.