Re: [PATCH v7 1/5] bug/kunit: Core support for suppressing warning backtraces

Albert Esteve
2026-04-21T08:23:05Z

On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 4:40 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 02:28:03PM +0200, Albert Esteve wrote:
> > From: Alessandro Carminati <acarmina@redhat.com>
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Implementation details:
> > Suppression is checked at two points in the warning path:
> > - In warn_slowpath_fmt(), the check runs before any output, fully
> > suppressing both message and backtrace.
> > - In __report_bug(), the check runs before __warn() is called,
> > suppressing the backtrace and stack dump. Note that on this path,
> > the WARN() format message may still appear in the kernel log since
> > __warn_printk() runs before the trap that enters __report_bug().
>
> This is for architectures that implement __WARN_FLAGS but not
> __WARN_printf right? (which is arm64, loongarch, parisc, powerpc, riscv,
> sh, afaict). ARM64 should eventually get __WARN_printf, but other than
> that this should be fixable by moving __WARN_FLAGS() into
> __warn_printk() or so. This is the only __warn_printk() user anyway.

Right. On that path, __warn_printk() prints the message before
__WARN_FLAGS() triggers the trap into __report_bug(), so the
suppression check in __report_bug() only catches the backtrace.

Adding the suppression check to __warn_printk() as well should close
this gap, since it's the only caller in the generic __WARN_printf
path. Something like:

```
diff --git a/kernel/panic.c b/kernel/panic.c
index d7a7a679f56c4..cd73038b7c0bd 100644
--- a/kernel/panic.c
+++ b/kernel/panic.c
@@ -1108,9 +1108,14 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(warn_slowpath_fmt);
#else
void __warn_printk(const char *fmt, ...)
{
- bool rcu = warn_rcu_enter();
+ bool rcu;
va_list args;
+ if (__kunit_is_suppressed_warning())
+ return;
+
+ rcu = warn_rcu_enter();
+
pr_warn(CUT_HERE);
va_start(args, fmt);
```
Note that the suppression counter tracking may need a small adjustment
to avoid double-counting, since __report_bug() will still see the same
warning through the trap path, but the approach itself should be
straightforward.

>
>
> > diff --git a/include/kunit/bug.h b/include/kunit/bug.h
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000000000..e52c9d21d9fe6
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/include/kunit/bug.h
> > @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
> > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> > +/*
> > + * KUnit helpers for backtrace suppression
> > + *
> > + * Copyright (C) 2025 Alessandro Carminati <acarmina@redhat.com>
> > + * Copyright (C) 2024 Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
> > + */
> > +
> > +#ifndef _KUNIT_BUG_H
> > +#define _KUNIT_BUG_H
> > +
> > +#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
> > +
> > +#include <linux/kconfig.h>
> > +
> > +struct kunit;
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_KUNIT_SUPPRESS_BACKTRACE
> > +
> > +#include <linux/types.h>
> > +
> > +struct task_struct;
> > +
> > +struct __suppressed_warning {
> > + struct list_head node;
> > + struct task_struct *task;
> > + int counter;
> > +};
> > +
> > +struct __suppressed_warning *
> > +__kunit_start_suppress_warning(struct kunit *test);
> > +void __kunit_end_suppress_warning(struct kunit *test,
> > + struct __suppressed_warning *warning);
> > +int __kunit_suppressed_warning_count(struct __suppressed_warning *warning);
> > +bool __kunit_is_suppressed_warning(void);
> > +
> > +#define KUNIT_START_SUPPRESSED_WARNING(test) \
> > + struct __suppressed_warning *__kunit_suppress = \
> > + __kunit_start_suppress_warning(test)
> > +
> > +#define KUNIT_END_SUPPRESSED_WARNING(test) \
> > + __kunit_end_suppress_warning(test, __kunit_suppress)
>
> We have __cleanup for this?

I was unfamiliar with this attribute. I have looked into it a bit, and
it could be a good fit. I saw a good example in seqlock. I could try
to use it for the next version.

>
> > +
> > +#define KUNIT_SUPPRESSED_WARNING_COUNT() \
> > + __kunit_suppressed_warning_count(__kunit_suppress)
> > +
> > +#else /* CONFIG_KUNIT_SUPPRESS_BACKTRACE */
> > +
> > +#define KUNIT_START_SUPPRESSED_WARNING(test)
> > +#define KUNIT_END_SUPPRESSED_WARNING(test)
> > +#define KUNIT_SUPPRESSED_WARNING_COUNT() 0
> > +static inline bool __kunit_is_suppressed_warning(void) { return false; }
> > +
> > +#endif /* CONFIG_KUNIT_SUPPRESS_BACKTRACE */
> > +#endif /* __ASSEMBLY__ */
> > +#endif /* _KUNIT_BUG_H */
>
> > diff --git a/lib/kunit/Makefile b/lib/kunit/Makefile
> > index 656f1fa35abcc..fe177ff3ebdef 100644
> > --- a/lib/kunit/Makefile
> > +++ b/lib/kunit/Makefile
> > @@ -16,8 +16,10 @@ ifeq ($(CONFIG_KUNIT_DEBUGFS),y)
> > kunit-objs += debugfs.o
> > endif
> >
> > -# KUnit 'hooks' are built-in even when KUnit is built as a module.
> > -obj-$(if $(CONFIG_KUNIT),y) += hooks.o
> > +# KUnit 'hooks' and bug handling are built-in even when KUnit is built
> > +# as a module.
> > +obj-$(if $(CONFIG_KUNIT),y) += hooks.o \
> > + bug.o
> >
> > obj-$(CONFIG_KUNIT_TEST) += kunit-test.o
> > obj-$(CONFIG_KUNIT_TEST) += platform-test.o
> > diff --git a/lib/kunit/bug.c b/lib/kunit/bug.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000000000..356c8a5928828
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/lib/kunit/bug.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > +/*
> > + * KUnit helpers for backtrace suppression
> > + *
> > + * Copyright (C) 2025 Alessandro Carminati <acarmina@redhat.com>
> > + * Copyright (C) 2024 Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
> > + */
> > +
> > +#include <kunit/bug.h>
> > +#include <kunit/resource.h>
> > +#include <linux/export.h>
> > +#include <linux/rculist.h>
> > +#include <linux/sched.h>
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_KUNIT_SUPPRESS_BACKTRACE
> > +
> > +static LIST_HEAD(suppressed_warnings);
> > +
> > +static void __kunit_suppress_warning_remove(struct __suppressed_warning *warning)
> > +{
> > + list_del_rcu(&warning->node);
> > + synchronize_rcu(); /* Wait for readers to finish */
> > +}
> > +
> > +KUNIT_DEFINE_ACTION_WRAPPER(__kunit_suppress_warning_cleanup,
> > + __kunit_suppress_warning_remove,
> > + struct __suppressed_warning *);
> > +
> > +struct __suppressed_warning *
> > +__kunit_start_suppress_warning(struct kunit *test)
> > +{
> > + struct __suppressed_warning *warning;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + warning = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*warning), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!warning)
> > + return NULL;
> > +
> > + warning->task = current;
> > + list_add_rcu(&warning->node, &suppressed_warnings);
>
> What if anything serializes this global list?

I considered adding a spinlock, but since the KUnit executor runs
tests sequentially and it had not been a concern in previous versions,
I left it out to keep the changeset minimal unless someone complains.
If we want a hard guarantee, I'm happy to add the spinlock for the
next version.

>
> > +
> > + ret = kunit_add_action_or_reset(test,
> > + __kunit_suppress_warning_cleanup,
> > + warning);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return NULL;
> > +
> > + return warning;
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__kunit_start_suppress_warning);
> > +
> > +void __kunit_end_suppress_warning(struct kunit *test,
> > + struct __suppressed_warning *warning)
> > +{
> > + if (!warning)
> > + return;
> > + kunit_release_action(test, __kunit_suppress_warning_cleanup, warning);
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__kunit_end_suppress_warning);
> > +
> > +int __kunit_suppressed_warning_count(struct __suppressed_warning *warning)
> > +{
> > + return warning ? warning->counter : 0;
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__kunit_suppressed_warning_count);
> > +
> > +bool __kunit_is_suppressed_warning(void)
> > +{
> > + struct __suppressed_warning *warning;
> > +
> > + rcu_read_lock();
> > + list_for_each_entry_rcu(warning, &suppressed_warnings, node) {
> > + if (warning->task == current) {
> > + warning->counter++;
> > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > + return true;
> > + }
> > + }
> > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > +
> > + return false;
> > +}
> > +
> > +#endif /* CONFIG_KUNIT_SUPPRESS_BACKTRACE */
> >
> > --
> > 2.52.0
> >
>