Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 2/2] selftests/bpf: add tests for PTR_TO_FLOW_KEYS offset bounds

[bot+bpf-ci]

> 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/20260604154507.B5CB51F00893@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/

> +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