Re: [PATCH v2 bpf 2/6] selftest: bpf: Add test for bpf_tcp_sock() and RAW socket.

On Mon, May 4, 2026 at 9:14 PM <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
> - [Low] Newly added code uses manual error checks instead of the mandated modern ASSERT_* macros.
> --
>
> commit 1a574056fa08ab8c66dcd9b6ee5f0739ff6721b7
> Author: Kuniyuki Iwashima <[email protected]>
>
> selftest: bpf: Add test for bpf_tcp_sock() and RAW socket.
>
> This commit adds a test to cover bpf_tcp_sock() for wrong socket types,
> specifically tricking it with IPPROTO_TCP on an AF_INET RAW socket. It
> also fixes a missing free() in the test.
>
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sockopt_sk.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sockopt_sk.c
> > index 53637431ec5d..5fd33ad2eaaf 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sockopt_sk.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sockopt_sk.c
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > @@ -211,6 +211,22 @@ static int getsetsockopt(void)
> >       }
> >       ASSERT_EQ(optlen, 8, "Unexpected NETLINK_LIST_MEMBERSHIPS value");
> >
> > +     /* Trick bpf_tcp_sock() with IPPROTO_TCP */
> > +     close(fd);
> > +     fd = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_RAW, IPPROTO_TCP);
> > +     if (fd < 0) {
> > +             log_err("Failed to create RAW socket");
> > +             goto err;
> > +     }
>
> This isn't a bug, but should this new code use the modern ASSERT_OK_FD()
> macro instead of manual fd checks and log_err()?

I don't mix different styles in the same file, also such
cleanup should be done in bpf-next.


>
> > +
> > +     optlen = 20;
> > +     errno = 0;
> > +     err = setsockopt(fd, SOL_TCP, TCP_SAVED_SYN, &buf, optlen);
> > +     if (!err) {
> > +             log_err("Unexpected setsockopt(TCP_SAVED_SYN)");
> > +             goto err;
> > +     }
>
> Could we use ASSERT_ERR() for this error check as well?

Same.