> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c
> b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c
> index 90c4b1a51de6..5e460b1dbdb6 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -1275,7 +1275,7 @@ bpf_testmod_ops__test_return_ref_kptr(int dummy, struct
> task_struct *task__ref,
> return NULL;
> }
>
> -static struct bpf_testmod_ops __bpf_testmod_ops = {
> +static const struct bpf_testmod_ops __bpf_testmod_ops = {
> .test_1 = bpf_testmod_test_1,
> .test_2 = bpf_testmod_test_2,
Is it safe to make __bpf_testmod_ops const here? In bpf_testmod_init(),
this struct is modified at runtime:
tramp = (void **)&__bpf_testmod_ops.tramp_1;
while (tramp <= (void **)&__bpf_testmod_ops.tramp_40)
*tramp++ = bpf_testmod_tramp;
Writing to a const-qualified object is undefined behavior and may cause a
protection fault when the compiler places this in read-only memory. Would
the module fail to load on systems where .rodata is actually read-only?
---
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/20624206229
