Re: [PATCH v13 6/8] selftests/bpf: Fix powerpc JIT disassembly failure

> selftests/bpf: Fix powerpc JIT disassembly failure
>
> Ensure that the trampoline stubs JITed at the tail of the
> epilogue do not expose the dummy trampoline address stored
> in the last 8 bytes(64-bit) and last 4 bytes(32-bit)
> to the disassembly flow. Prevent the disassembler from
> ingesting this memory address, as it may occasionally decode
> into a seemingly valid but incorrect instruction. Fix this
> issue by truncating the last 8/4 bytes from JITed buffers
> before supplying them for disassembly.

Does the changelog accurately describe when this fix takes effect?

Looking at this commit, get_jited_program_text() is only called from
run_subtest() in tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_loader.c when
subspec->jited.cnt != 0. The __jited expectations are only recorded
when the preceding __arch_* tag matches the running architecture:

    } else if ((val = str_has_pfx(s, "test_arch="))) {
            ...
            collect_jit = get_current_arch() == arch;

Since get_current_arch() in this tree has no powerpc case, it returns
ARCH_UNKNOWN, no __arch_* tag ever matches on powerpc, jited.cnt stays
0, and get_jited_program_text() is never invoked on powerpc.

The path only becomes reachable with the later patches in the same
series, 422d7386c6a2b (which adds ARCH_POWERPC64 / __arch_powerpc64) and
b787dda9a979d (which adds tailcall verifier selftest). Would it be more
accurate to describe this as a prerequisite for that enablement rather
than as a fix for a current failure?

Also, the changelog says the address "may occasionally decode into a
seemingly valid but incorrect instruction", whereas the comment added by
this same hunk says the bytes "can't disassemble to a valid
instruction", and the companion patch 0cd8bd7da278d quotes the concrete
symptom:

    Can't disasm instruction at offset 104: c0 34 1d 00 00 00 00 c0

A hard "Can't disasm" abort (what disasm_insn() reports via PRINT_FAIL)
is a different problem from a mis-decode into a plausible-looking
instruction. Could the commit message be more precise about which
failure mode actually occurs?


---
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/33368376983