> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c > b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c > index 89779d897aba..8a3d69e2453c 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c
[ ... ] > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_flow_keys.c > b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_flow_keys.c > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..d780a36a6e9a > --- /dev/null > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_flow_keys.c > @@ -0,0 +1,97 @@ > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > +/* Bounds checks for PTR_TO_FLOW_KEYS pointer arithmetic. */ [ ... ] > + > +/* Equivalent OOB expressed directly in insn->off; this form was always > + * rejected and is kept to show both forms now share one diagnostic. > + */ This isn't a bug, but does this multi-line comment follow the preferred BPF subsystem style? The guidelines specify that the opening /* should be on its own line, with the comment text starting on the next line. Note: This style issue has been consistently raised in reviews for v1, v2, and v3 but has not been addressed. Reference: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/ > +SEC("flow_dissector") > +__description("flow_keys: OOB via insn->off rejected") > +__failure __msg("invalid access to flow keys off=4096 size=8") > +__naked void flow_keys_insn_off_oob(void) [ ... ] --- 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/27060463888
