> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c
> index a656a8572bdb..d85869544dc8 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c
> @@ -2480,8 +2480,12 @@ static bool __bpf_prog_map_compatible(struct bpf_map
> *map,
> break;
> cookie = aux->cgroup_storage[i] ?
> aux->cgroup_storage[i]->cookie : 0;
> - ret = map->owner->storage_cookie[i] == cookie ||
> - !cookie;
> + /*
> + * Tail calls keep using the caller cgroup storage
> + * context, so prog-array members must use the same
> + * storage cookie.
> + */
> + ret = map->owner->storage_cookie[i] == cookie;
> }
> if (ret &&
> map->owner->attach_func_proto != aux->attach_func_proto) {
Related to this patch series, Leon Hwang raised a concern about test
placement in the selftest file (tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/
tailcalls.c). The new cgroup storage tail-call tests should be placed at
the tail of test_tailcalls() rather than before tailcall_failure and
tailcall_sleepable.
Reference:
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/
Leon's comment from v2: "These new ones should stay at the tail of
test_tailcalls()."
Should the test ordering be adjusted in the selftest file to address this
feedback?
---
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/26923843925
