Re: [PATCH] selftests/bpf: Fix map_lookup_percpu_elem on sparse CPU IDs

[Suchit Karunakaran]

On Thu, 3 Sept 2026 at 06:02, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 7:20 AM Suchit Karunakaran
> <suchitkarunakaran@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > libbpf_num_possible_cpus() returns the number of possible CPUs, which is
> > appropriate for sizing packed per-CPU map value buffers. It is not the
> > upper bound for logical CPU IDs.
> >
> > For a possible CPU mask such as 0,2-3, the test loops over CPU IDs 0
> > through 2. This incorrectly visits CPU 1 and misses CPU 3. It also
> > initializes packed per-CPU slots using their slot indexes rather than
> > the corresponding logical CPU IDs.
> >
> > Parse the possible CPU mask and keep the packed slot count separate
> > from the logical CPU ID range. Populate each dense per-CPU slot with
> > its logical CPU ID, calculate the corresponding expected sum, and make
> > the BPF program iterate over the full CPU ID range.
> >
>
> Is this the issue you ran into in practice or it's just another of
> those found by AI reading code?
>
>
> > Fixes: 7aa424e02a04bba5ecc84afe9b58b16e9e0b34f8 ("selftests/bpf: Fix some bugs in map_lookup_percpu_elem testcase")
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Suchit Karunakaran <suchitkarunakaran@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  .../bpf/prog_tests/map_lookup_percpu_elem.c   | 34 ++++++++++++++-----
> >  .../bpf/progs/test_map_lookup_percpu_elem.c   |  8 ++---
> >  2 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/map_lookup_percpu_elem.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/map_lookup_percpu_elem.c
> > index bfb1bf3fd427..849f33259c00 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/map_lookup_percpu_elem.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/map_lookup_percpu_elem.c
> > @@ -2,29 +2,45 @@
> >  /* Copyright (c) 2022 Bytedance */
> >
> >  #include <test_progs.h>
> > +#include "bpf/libbpf_internal.h"
> >  #include "test_map_lookup_percpu_elem.skel.h"
> >
> >  void test_map_lookup_percpu_elem(void)
> >  {
> >         struct test_map_lookup_percpu_elem *skel;
> > -       __u64 key = 0, sum;
> > -       int ret, i, nr_cpus = libbpf_num_possible_cpus();
> > +       bool *possible = NULL;
> > +       __u64 key = 0, sum = 0;
> > +       int cpu, nr_cpu_ids, nr_cpus, ret, slot = 0;
> >         __u64 *buf;
> >
> > -       buf = malloc(nr_cpus*sizeof(__u64));
> > -       if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(buf, "malloc"))
> > +       ret = parse_cpu_mask_file("/sys/devices/system/cpu/possible", &possible,
> > +                                 &nr_cpu_ids);
> > +       if (!ASSERT_OK(ret, "parse possible CPU mask"))
> >                 return;
> >
> > -       for (i = 0; i < nr_cpus; i++)
> > -               buf[i] = i;
> > -       sum = (nr_cpus - 1) * nr_cpus / 2;
> > +       nr_cpus = libbpf_num_possible_cpus();
> > +       if (!ASSERT_GT(nr_cpus, 0, "libbpf_num_possible_cpus"))
> > +               goto free_mask;
> > +
> > +       buf = malloc(nr_cpus * sizeof(*buf));
> > +       if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(buf, "malloc"))
> > +               goto free_mask;
> > +
> > +       for (cpu = 0; cpu < nr_cpu_ids; cpu++) {
> > +               if (!possible[cpu])
> > +                       continue;
> > +               buf[slot++] = cpu;
> > +               sum += cpu;
> > +       }
> > +       if (!ASSERT_EQ(slot, nr_cpus, "possible CPU mask weight"))
> > +               goto exit;
> >
> >         skel = test_map_lookup_percpu_elem__open();
> >         if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "test_map_lookup_percpu_elem__open"))
> >                 goto exit;
> >
> >         skel->rodata->my_pid = getpid();
> > -       skel->rodata->nr_cpus = nr_cpus;
> > +       skel->rodata->nr_cpu_ids = nr_cpu_ids;
> >
> >         ret = test_map_lookup_percpu_elem__load(skel);
> >         if (!ASSERT_OK(ret, "test_map_lookup_percpu_elem__load"))
> > @@ -55,4 +71,6 @@ void test_map_lookup_percpu_elem(void)
> >         test_map_lookup_percpu_elem__destroy(skel);
> >  exit:
> >         free(buf);
> > +free_mask:
> > +       free(possible);
> >  }
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_map_lookup_percpu_elem.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_map_lookup_percpu_elem.c
> > index ca827b1092da..d8da0696b97c 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_map_lookup_percpu_elem.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_map_lookup_percpu_elem.c
> > @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
> >  __u64 percpu_array_elem_sum = 0;
> >  __u64 percpu_hash_elem_sum = 0;
> >  __u64 percpu_lru_hash_elem_sum = 0;
> > -const volatile int nr_cpus;
> > +const volatile int nr_cpu_ids;
> >  const volatile int my_pid;
> >
> >  struct {
> > @@ -57,17 +57,17 @@ int sysenter_getuid(const void *ctx)
> >
> >         map_ctx.map = &percpu_array_map;
> >         map_ctx.sum = 0;
> > -       bpf_loop(nr_cpus, read_percpu_elem_callback, &map_ctx, 0);
> > +       bpf_loop(nr_cpu_ids, read_percpu_elem_callback, &map_ctx, 0);
> >         percpu_array_elem_sum = map_ctx.sum;
> >
> >         map_ctx.map = &percpu_hash_map;
> >         map_ctx.sum = 0;
> > -       bpf_loop(nr_cpus, read_percpu_elem_callback, &map_ctx, 0);
> > +       bpf_loop(nr_cpu_ids, read_percpu_elem_callback, &map_ctx, 0);
> >         percpu_hash_elem_sum = map_ctx.sum;
> >
> >         map_ctx.map = &percpu_lru_hash_map;
> >         map_ctx.sum = 0;
> > -       bpf_loop(nr_cpus, read_percpu_elem_callback, &map_ctx, 0);
> > +       bpf_loop(nr_cpu_ids, read_percpu_elem_callback, &map_ctx, 0);
> >         percpu_lru_hash_elem_sum = map_ctx.sum;
> >
> >         return 0;
> > --
> > 2.55.0
> >

Hi Andrii, I did use AI to find this. I often go through recent
commits and then ask AI to check whether the related selftests have
been updated and that's how I found this.