On Fri Jun 12, 2026 at 3:18 AM PDT, Shung-Hsi Yu wrote:

On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 09:55:55AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:

quoted

On Thu Jun 11, 2026 at 9:07 AM PDT, Zhenzhong Wu wrote:

quoted

Add a verifier runtime test for a branch pattern where a helper return
value and a related scalar stay live across the same control-flow
sequence. Rust/Aya-generated eBPF can naturally produce this shape when
a match on a helper status keeps data derived before the helper call
live across the same branches. Such code commonly uses the helper return
value in r0, where 0 means success, producing an r0 == 0 / r0 != 0
branch shape.

[...]

quoted

quoted

+SEC("tc")
+__description("helper retval linked scalar pruning")
+__success __retval(0)
+__naked void helper_retval_linked_scalar_pruning(void)
+{
+	asm volatile (
+	"r7 = *(u32 *)(r1 + %[__sk_buff_data_end]);"
+	"r5 = *(u32 *)(r1 + %[__sk_buff_data]);"
+	"r7 -= r5;"
+	"r2 = 0;"
+	"r3 = r10;"
+	"r3 += -8;"
+	"r4 = 1;"
+	"call %[bpf_skb_load_bytes];"
+	"r0 += 1;"
+	"r6 = 1;"
+	/* success path keeps r7 independent; failure path links r7 to r0. */
+	"if r0 == 1 goto l0_%=;"

this exercises linked registers with BPF_ADD_CONST logic.
We already have such tests. Why do we need this one?
How is it different?

BPF_ADD_CONST wasn't what was meant to be tested.

The main logic is r7.id == r0.id only happens on "if r0 == 1 goto l0_%="
fall through, and does not have such link otherwise. I only check tests
added in commit c0087d59e504 ("selftests/bpf: tests for per-insn
sync_linked_regs() precision tracking"), but it doesn't seem like such
conditional linking was tested. 

The other rational is that this seem like a common pattern that is
genereated from Rust-based BPF program.

quoted

quoted

+	/* success path keeps r7 independent; failure path links r7 to r0. */
+	"if r0 == 1 goto l0_%=;"
+	"r7 = r0;"

         ^^^^^^^ conditional scalar linking

Fine, it's a regular register linking without BPF_ADD_CONST.
Still the question remains. I believe:
"We already have such tests. Why do we need this one? How is it different?"