Re: [PATCH 1/1] arm64: Add initial set of stack unwinder self tests

[Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1476 bytes --]

On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 05:10:00PM +0300, Ivan T. Ivanov wrote:
> Add kunit tests for obvious cases where stack unwind could be needed.
> Like these:
> 
>  * Unwind a separate task
>  * Unwind starting from caller
>  * Unwind from irq context
>  * Unwind from kprobe handler called via ftrace
>  * Unwind from ftrace handler
>  * Unwind through kretprobed function
>  * Unwind from kretprobe handler
> 
> Tests are completely based on code used in s390 unwinder tests.
> Cases which where not relevant to aarch64 where removed and
> some places where adjusted to address aarch64 specifics.

I think this would be a bit easier to digest if it were a series which
builds things up with the test cases in individual patches, or at least
things like ftrace and kprobes split out a bit more, rather than every
single test all at once.  I've got a few *very* superficial comments
below, I think the code is fine but there's several moving pieces to
check.

> +/*
> + * Calls test_arch_stack_walk() which is handy wrapper of aarch64 unwind
> + * functionality, and verifies that the result contains unwindme_func2
> + *followed by unwindme_func1.

Missing space.

> +	ret = register_ftrace_function(fops);
> +	if (!ret) {
> +		ret = test_unwind_ftraced_func(u);
> +		unregister_ftrace_function(fops);
> +	} else {
> +		kunit_err(current_test,
> +			  "failed to register ftrace handler (%d)\n", ret);
> +	}

Shouldn't we return an error here?

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel