Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1 00/14] selftests/bpf: Fixes for userspace ASAN

[Eduard Zingerman]

On Fri, 2026-02-13 at 09:56 -0800, Ihor Solodrai wrote:
> On 2/12/26 3:26 PM, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> > On Wed, 2026-02-11 at 17:13 -0800, Ihor Solodrai wrote:
> > > This series includes various fixes aiming to enable test_progs run
> > > with userspace address sanitizer on BPF CI.
> > > 
> > > The first patch fixes the selftests/bpf/test_progs build with:
> > > 
> > >     SAN_CFLAGS="-fsanitize=address -fno-omit-frame-pointer"
> > > 
> > > The subsequent patches fix bugs reported by the address sanitizer on
> > > attempt to run the tests.
> > > 
> > > The series is a pre-requisite for enabling "test_progs with ASAN"
> > > workflow on BPF CI.
> > 
> > Also, do we want to have ASAN enabled by default?
> 
> I don't think so. At least not right away.
> 
> > If it would be enabled for CI, people will need to deal with local
> > configuration anyway. It might make sense to put the default flags in
> > to save everyone the trouble of figuring out which flags CI uses.
> > Wdyt?
> 
> WIP CI changes add an *additional* test job, that builds only
> test_progs default flavor with ASAN and runs it. Previous test jobs,
> built with -static, are still there as usual.
> 
> There are tests that don't play well with ASAN such as BPF arena
> tests, and some tests may be much slower when ASAN is enabled.
> We still want to run them on CI.

Fair enough.

> I don't see why we should pick between asan everywhere or
> nowhere. At the very least, CI should make sure selftests can build
> successfully without the asan flags.
> 
> Additional job will catch most of bugs of the sort covered in this
> series, and that is good enough I think.

My main concern is that when this fails on CI I will have to dig
through CI config to recover exact SAN_CFLAGS used. If not enabled by
default I'd still like to have a single knob like 'ASAN=t'.