netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 12/14] sh: Add support for suppressing warning backtraces

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 19:39:20 +0000
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Maíra Canal <mcanal@...lia.com>,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Daniel Diaz <daniel.diaz@...aro.org>,
	David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>,
	Arthur Grillo <arthurgrillo@...eup.net>,
	Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>,
	Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
	Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
	Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
	Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, loongarch@...ts.linux.dev,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/14] sh: Add support for suppressing warning
 backtraces

On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 08:10:51AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 3/27/24 07:44, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 10:52:46AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > Add name of functions triggering warning backtraces to the __bug_table
> > > object section to enable support for suppressing WARNING backtraces.
> > > 
> > > To limit image size impact, the pointer to the function name is only added
> > > to the __bug_table section if both CONFIG_KUNIT_SUPPRESS_BACKTRACE and
> > > CONFIG_DEBUG_BUGVERBOSE are enabled. Otherwise, the __func__ assembly
> > > parameter is replaced with a (dummy) NULL parameter to avoid an image size
> > > increase due to unused __func__ entries (this is necessary because __func__
> > > is not a define but a virtual variable).
> > > 
> > > Tested-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@...aro.org>
> > > Acked-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
> > > ---
> > > - Rebased to v6.9-rc1
> > > - Added Tested-by:, Acked-by:, and Reviewed-by: tags
> > > - Introduced KUNIT_SUPPRESS_BACKTRACE configuration option
> > > 
> > >   arch/sh/include/asm/bug.h | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++----
> > >   1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/sh/include/asm/bug.h b/arch/sh/include/asm/bug.h
> > > index 05a485c4fabc..470ce6567d20 100644
> > > --- a/arch/sh/include/asm/bug.h
> > > +++ b/arch/sh/include/asm/bug.h
> > > @@ -24,21 +24,36 @@
> > >    * The offending file and line are encoded in the __bug_table section.
> > >    */
> > >   #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_BUGVERBOSE
> > > +
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_KUNIT_SUPPRESS_BACKTRACE
> > > +# define HAVE_BUG_FUNCTION
> > > +# define __BUG_FUNC_PTR	"\t.long %O2\n"
> > > +#else
> > > +# define __BUG_FUNC_PTR
> > > +#endif /* CONFIG_KUNIT_SUPPRESS_BACKTRACE */
> > > +
> > 
> > Hi Guenter,
> > 
> > a minor nit from my side: this change results in a Kernel doc warning.
> > 
> >       .../bug.h:29: warning: expecting prototype for _EMIT_BUG_ENTRY(). Prototype was for HAVE_BUG_FUNCTION() instead
> > 
> > Perhaps either the new code should be placed above the Kernel doc,
> > or scripts/kernel-doc should be enhanced?
> > 
> 
> Thanks a lot for the feedback.
> 
> The definition block needs to be inside CONFIG_DEBUG_BUGVERBOSE,
> so it would be a bit odd to move it above the documentation
> just to make kerneldoc happy. I am not really sure that to do
> about it.

FWIIW, I agree that would be odd.
But perhaps the #ifdef could also move above the Kernel doc?
Maybe not a great idea, but the best one I've had so far.

> I'll wait for comments from others before making any changes.
> 
> Thanks,
> Guenter
> 
> > >   #define _EMIT_BUG_ENTRY				\
> > >   	"\t.pushsection __bug_table,\"aw\"\n"	\
> > >   	"2:\t.long 1b, %O1\n"			\
> > > -	"\t.short %O2, %O3\n"			\
> > > -	"\t.org 2b+%O4\n"			\
> > > +	__BUG_FUNC_PTR				\
> > > +	"\t.short %O3, %O4\n"			\
> > > +	"\t.org 2b+%O5\n"			\
> > >   	"\t.popsection\n"
> > >   #else
> > >   #define _EMIT_BUG_ENTRY				\
> > >   	"\t.pushsection __bug_table,\"aw\"\n"	\
> > >   	"2:\t.long 1b\n"			\
> > > -	"\t.short %O3\n"			\
> > > -	"\t.org 2b+%O4\n"			\
> > > +	"\t.short %O4\n"			\
> > > +	"\t.org 2b+%O5\n"			\
> > >   	"\t.popsection\n"
> > >   #endif
> > > +#ifdef HAVE_BUG_FUNCTION
> > > +# define __BUG_FUNC	__func__
> > > +#else
> > > +# define __BUG_FUNC	NULL
> > > +#endif
> > > +
> > >   #define BUG()						\
> > >   do {							\
> > >   	__asm__ __volatile__ (				\
> > 
> > ...
>