From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87FC8CD1288 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2024 21:21:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=chromium.org header.i=@chromium.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=google header.b=Rv6KSrJd; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4V8yNg1Pd0z3dng for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 08:21:23 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=chromium.org header.i=@chromium.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=google header.b=Rv6KSrJd; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=chromium.org (client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::62e; helo=mail-pl1-x62e.google.com; envelope-from=keescook@chromium.org; receiver=lists.ozlabs.org) Received: from mail-pl1-x62e.google.com (mail-pl1-x62e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62e]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4V8yMt0lGSz3bZ3 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 08:20:40 +1100 (AEDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x62e.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-1e0d8403257so2387195ad.1 for ; Wed, 03 Apr 2024 14:20:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; t=1712179236; x=1712784036; darn=lists.ozlabs.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=gk/7t8bB/vPp5RYyhmHYp9/pKPIZpl1c0Hpc1VIArKM=; b=Rv6KSrJd2DZj25Yc7kk7fpqEMwFr79RlzPS/tqztSYMunseUqIVI6pbbkfP2HQyuKc bgemiwIUeICs2/5u0jj3OVoValgNa/gGn1EPxnBCnXXTGhytemqRTBOrAAEccfnqkUO+ v6H3OaeHLj0irV1Z05JKZi0DK31B8qIjs2sYw= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1712179236; x=1712784036; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=gk/7t8bB/vPp5RYyhmHYp9/pKPIZpl1c0Hpc1VIArKM=; b=cPkyU/0dOfj5GudGyhptFjOF6/HbOn0W2tATj2+FQ/u29F6PCgrxQVQ+j+bLbKGMvu gzccHsAAJY1EZ5LD6wvf7SDNQTX5GLbUPXjQxaOTpO5ULBWFJJAg2e7PRj8RfnaO2851 JmE/T7LbVdEgo4yJa2ptSjhDfyUPajgFGqlXW+70aEabp79nn/bc9Oaqa4+s6H4eEie7 mHSm7Nd8NP3oZigmjDjWg/9hgEeakPK0QUE5k5jipqQr49HbTpXluVDZ98JaGqtINcJK MRrt13A9iBc+gDiWpfyb0rlsjxQswQOLQMtsIM30ecSawf9hZNngu6wfg0+AdhnkGHGM n+5A== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXeFdcOXjY9lALtSLPdVf/zeu/Tt0kG18AtIWFIpI69vSy/Sq/PGLvFE53sDOHY9rG76sc9CZia0DjSJR3A0JrmTQlL6PUzGQJzmgbeZQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxpZ3UM3gcH5IHmf0EU3U/o2hQNiBhU2jTwhw3JZPJNqf3ZHMRZ Bnq7pijy95aGkXBrJc7gQRuZbD/Ac0Jtpj40SaTMiTWPROUdkCEcHiz9jNVwkA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFNWSt+grv0aoo3QXgpCvCZ7QxZ9IBnA1B4gdZs5eLtWkdhNXO9ogb9Q/XDMKHoC6MfZl34Wg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:110f:b0:1e0:f25b:e795 with SMTP id n15-20020a170903110f00b001e0f25be795mr509491plh.11.1712179236057; Wed, 03 Apr 2024 14:20:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.outflux.net ([198.0.35.241]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m16-20020a170902bb9000b001e2a87d7d2dsm163988pls.253.2024.04.03.14.20.35 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 03 Apr 2024 14:20:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 14:20:34 -0700 From: Kees Cook To: Guenter Roeck Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/15] Add support for suppressing warning backtraces Message-ID: <202404031414.645255D868@keescook> References: <20240403131936.787234-1-linux@roeck-us.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240403131936.787234-1-linux@roeck-us.net> X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: x86@kernel.org, loongarch@lists.linux.dev, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, Brendan Higgins , linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, David Airlie , Arthur Grillo , Ville =?iso-8859-1?Q?Syrj=E4l=E4?= , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Daniel Diaz , linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, Naresh Kamboju , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ma=EDra?= Canal , Dan Carpenter , Daniel Vetter , Arnd Bergmann , Maarten Lankhorst , Maxime Ripard , David Gow , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Zimmermann , Andrew Morton , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 06:19:21AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > Some unit tests intentionally trigger warning backtraces by passing bad > parameters to kernel API functions. Such unit tests typically check the > return value from such calls, not the existence of the warning backtrace. > > Such intentionally generated warning backtraces are neither desirable > nor useful for a number of reasons. > - They can result in overlooked real problems. > - A warning that suddenly starts to show up in unit tests needs to be > investigated and has to be marked to be ignored, for example by > adjusting filter scripts. Such filters are ad-hoc because there is > no real standard format for warnings. On top of that, such filter > scripts would require constant maintenance. > > One option to address problem would be to add messages such as "expected > warning backtraces start / end here" to the kernel log. However, that > would again require filter scripts, it might result in missing real > problematic warning backtraces triggered while the test is running, and > the irrelevant backtrace(s) would still clog the kernel log. > > Solve the problem by providing a means to identify and suppress specific > warning backtraces while executing test code. Support suppressing multiple > backtraces while at the same time limiting changes to generic code to the > absolute minimum. Architecture specific changes are kept at minimum by > retaining function names only if both CONFIG_DEBUG_BUGVERBOSE and > CONFIG_KUNIT are enabled. > > The first patch of the series introduces the necessary infrastructure. > The second patch introduces support for counting suppressed backtraces. > This capability is used in patch three to implement unit tests. > Patch four documents the new API. > The next two patches add support for suppressing backtraces in drm_rect > and dev_addr_lists unit tests. These patches are intended to serve as > examples for the use of the functionality introduced with this series. > The remaining patches implement the necessary changes for all > architectures with GENERIC_BUG support. > > With CONFIG_KUNIT enabled, image size increase with this series applied is > approximately 1%. The image size increase (and with it the functionality > introduced by this series) can be avoided by disabling > CONFIG_KUNIT_SUPPRESS_BACKTRACE. > > This series is based on the RFC patch and subsequent discussion at > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-kselftest/patch/02546e59-1afe-4b08-ba81-d94f3b691c9a@moroto.mountain/ > and offers a more comprehensive solution of the problem discussed there. > > Design note: > Function pointers are only added to the __bug_table section if both > CONFIG_KUNIT_SUPPRESS_BACKTRACE and CONFIG_DEBUG_BUGVERBOSE are enabled > to avoid image size increases if CONFIG_KUNIT is disabled. There would be > some benefits to adding those pointers all the time (reduced complexity, > ability to display function names in BUG/WARNING messages). That change, > if desired, can be made later. > > Checkpatch note: > Remaining checkpatch errors and warnings were deliberately ignored. > Some are triggered by matching coding style or by comments interpreted > as code, others by assembler macros which are disliked by checkpatch. > Suggestions for improvements are welcome. > > Changes since RFC: > - Introduced CONFIG_KUNIT_SUPPRESS_BACKTRACE > - Minor cleanups and bug fixes > - Added support for all affected architectures > - Added support for counting suppressed warnings > - Added unit tests using those counters > - Added patch to suppress warning backtraces in dev_addr_lists tests > > Changes since v1: > - Rebased to v6.9-rc1 > - Added Tested-by:, Acked-by:, and Reviewed-by: tags > [I retained those tags since there have been no functional changes] > - Introduced KUNIT_SUPPRESS_BACKTRACE configuration option, enabled by > default. > > Changes since v2: > - Rebased to v6.9-rc2 > - Added comments to drm warning suppression explaining why it is needed. > - Added patch to move conditional code in arch/sh/include/asm/bug.h > to avoid kerneldoc warning > - Added architecture maintainers to Cc: for architecture specific patches > - No functional changes > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Guenter Roeck (15): > bug/kunit: Core support for suppressing warning backtraces > kunit: bug: Count suppressed warning backtraces > kunit: Add test cases for backtrace warning suppression > kunit: Add documentation for warning backtrace suppression API > drm: Suppress intentional warning backtraces in scaling unit tests > net: kunit: Suppress lock warning noise at end of dev_addr_lists tests > x86: Add support for suppressing warning backtraces > arm64: Add support for suppressing warning backtraces > loongarch: Add support for suppressing warning backtraces > parisc: Add support for suppressing warning backtraces > s390: Add support for suppressing warning backtraces > sh: Add support for suppressing warning backtraces > sh: Move defines needed for suppressing warning backtraces > riscv: Add support for suppressing warning backtraces > powerpc: Add support for suppressing warning backtraces Tested-by: Kees Cook (for x86 and um) I was planning to add warning suppression for the "overflow" KUnit tests, but it seems the vmalloc routines aren't calling warn_alloc() any more for impossible sizes. So, I think, no patches needed for lib/overflow_kunit.c, but at the end of the day, I've tested this series is working for me. :P -- Kees Cook