On Mon, 2025-08-25 at 21:15 +0800, Leon Hwang wrote:
> cd tools/testing/selftests/bpf
> ./test_progs -t irq
> #143/29 irq/in_interrupt:OK
> #143 irq:OK
> Summary: 1/34 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
>
> Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/irq.c | 7 +++++++
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/irq.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/irq.c
> index 74d912b22de90..65a796fd1d615 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/irq.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/irq.c
> @@ -563,4 +563,11 @@ int irq_wrong_kfunc_class_2(struct __sk_buff *ctx)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +SEC("?tc")
> +__success
Could you please extend this test to verify generated x86 assembly
code? (see __arch_x86_64 and __jited macro usage in verifier_tailcall_jit.c).
Also, is it necessary to extend this test to actually verify returned
value?
> +int in_interrupt(struct __sk_buff *ctx)
> +{
> + return bpf_in_interrupt();
> +}
> +
> char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
