Hi Kumar, On Mon Aug 24, 2026 at 12:53 AM CEST, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote: > On Mon Aug 24, 2026 at 12:40 AM CEST, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote: >> On Sat Aug 22, 2026 at 12:39 AM CEST, Alexis Lothoré (eBPF Foundation) wrote:
[...] >>> #171 kasan:OK (SKIP: 16/54) >>> Summary: 1/38 PASSED, 16 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Alexis Lothoré (eBPF Foundation) <[email protected]> >>> --- >> >> 1. Should this test be made serial to make sure bpf_jit_harden sysctl change >> doesn't affect other tests? Indeed, that makes sense, I'll flag it as serial. >> 2. Clang currently collapses the intended ST/STX distinction for *_on_stack >> tests: default/v3 emits STX for both pairs, cpuv4 emits ST for both, and the >> default st_blinded object is already STX and therefore is not blinded. Please >> check and assert that xlated insns are correct in the test itself if >> possible. >> It might be necessary to use asm volatile assembly blocks in case you cannot >> work around the compiler in C. Ah, good catch, thanks. For the blinding test, I really checked that the blinding is inserted, and re-running this again, it looks like I have been fooled; there's indeed some blinding inserted, but not on ST/STX > For 2, I guess as a whole you still get coverage, since we run with both cpu > versions in CI. So it should be fine I guess, for the blinded case too, but > perhaps it would still make sense and be clearer to verify and only enable st > case for v4, and force stx to remain stx on v4. Ok, I'll update the test so that ST/STX/st blinding are correcly skipped depending on the CPU version. Alexis -- Alexis Lothoré, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
