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: <82944fa5ded226a7a91da123ec384e8e353df448628c47850c6bfa9917f85960@mail.kernel.org>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2026 05:33:25 +0000 (UTC)
From: bot+bpf-ci@...nel.org
To: ameryhung@...il.com,bpf@...r.kernel.org
Cc: 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,ameryhung@...il.com,kernel-team@...a.com,ast@...nel.org,andrii@...nel.org,daniel@...earbox.net,martin.lau@...nel.org,eddyz87@...il.com,yonghong.song@...ux.dev,clm@...a.com,ihor.solodrai@...ux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 13/16] selftests/bpf: Update task_local_storage/recursion test

> 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?

>  	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.