netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v6 13/17] 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: <47c4a239503f811cce651c4ff0c57bd0e088befaa30adad912240804eaed2fe0@mail.kernel.org>
Date: Thu,  5 Feb 2026 07:37:45 +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 v6 13/17] 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..7bee33797 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/task_local_storage.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/task_local_storage.c
> @@ -112,24 +112,24 @@ static void test_recursion(void)
>  	task_ls_recursion__detach(skel);
>
>  	/* Refer to the comment in BPF_PROG(on_update) for
> -	 * the explanation on the value 201 and 100.
> +	 * the explanation on the value 200 and 1.
>  	 */

This comment directs readers to the BPF_PROG(on_update) comments in
progs/task_ls_recursion.c for an explanation of the expected values.

However, the comments in task_ls_recursion.c were not updated and still
describe the old behavior. The second comment in BPF_PROG(on_update) says:

    /* This will still fail because map_b is empty and
     * this BPF_PROG(on_update) has failed to acquire
     * the percpu busy lock => meaning potential
     * deadlock is detected and it will fail to create
     * new storage.
     */

The "percpu busy lock" mentioned here no longer exists after commit
de64e0109 removed the percpu counter. With the new behavior, map_b
creation now succeeds because bpf_trampoline catches the recursion
instead.

Should the comments in task_ls_recursion.c be updated to match the new
behavior, or should this test file comment be changed to reference the
commit message instead?

[ ... ]

---
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/21702523104

AI-authorship-score: low
AI-authorship-explanation: The commit shows characteristics of human-written kernel code including a hand-crafted ASCII diagram, concise technical language, and minor inconsistencies in capitalization typical of manual editing.
issues-found: 1
issue-severity-score: low
issue-severity-explanation: Documentation inconsistency where test file references BPF program comments that were not updated to reflect the new behavior after percpu counter removal.