Re: [PATCH bpf-next v14 1/5] bpf: Move constants blinding out of arch-specific JITs

[bot+bpf-ci]

> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c
> index 066b86e7233c..fc9fb3c07866 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c

[ ... ]

>  /**
>   *	bpf_prog_select_runtime - select exec runtime for BPF program
>   *	@fp: bpf_prog populated with BPF program

[ ... ]

> -	/* eBPF JITs can rewrite the program in case constant
> -	 * blinding is active. However, in case of error during
> -	 * blinding, bpf_int_jit_compile() must always return a
> -	 * valid program, which in this case would simply not
> -	 * be JITed, but falls back to the interpreter.
> -	 */
> +	/* eBPF JITs can rewrite the program in case constant
> +	 * blinding is active. However, in case of error during
> +	 * blinding, bpf_int_jit_compile() must always return a
> +	 * valid program, which in this case would simply not
> +	 * be JITed, but falls back to the interpreter.
> +	 */

This isn't a bug, but this comment still references bpf_int_jit_compile()
even though the code now calls bpf_prog_jit_compile(). Should this be
updated to match?

> -		fp = bpf_int_jit_compile(fp);
> +		fp = bpf_prog_jit_compile(fp);

> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/fixups.c b/kernel/bpf/fixups.c
> index 67c9b28767e1..ec8afd6a9369 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/fixups.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/fixups.c

[ ... ]

> +out_jit_err:
> +	if (blinded) {
> +		bpf_jit_prog_release_other(orig_prog, prog);
> +		/* roll back to the clean original prog */
> +		prog = env->prog = orig_prog;
> +		goto out_restore;
> +	} else {
> +		if (err != -EFAULT) {
> +			/*
> +			 * We will fall back to interpreter mode when err is not -EFAULT, before
> +			 * that, insn->off and insn->imm should be restored to their original
> +			 * values since they were modified by __jit_subprogs.
> +			 */

The comment references __jit_subprogs, but the function is named
jit_subprogs (no double underscore prefix). Should this be updated?

> +			for (i = 0, insn = prog->insnsi; i < prog->len; i++, insn++) {
> +				if (!bpf_pseudo_call(insn))
> +					continue;
> +				insn->off = 0;
> +				insn->imm = env->insn_aux_data[i].call_imm;
> +			}
> +		}


---
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/24345549165