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  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:   Fri, 17 Sep 2021 09:38:09 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <>
To:     Brendan Higgins <>
Cc:     Shuah Khan <>, David Gow <>,
        Arnd Bergmann <>,
        Kees Cook <>,
        Rafael Wysocki <>,
        Jonathan Cameron <>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <>,
        Ulf Hansson <>,,,
        Mika Westerberg <>,, Masahiro Yamada <>,
        Michal Marek <>,
        Nick Desaulniers <>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        KUnit Development <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
        Linus Torvalds <>,
        gregkh <>,,
        linux-mmc <>,
        USB list <>,,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/6] kunit: build kunit tests without structleak plugin

On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 8:10 AM Brendan Higgins
<> wrote:
> The structleak plugin causes the stack frame size to grow immensely when
> used with KUnit; this is caused because KUnit allocates lots of
> moderately sized structs on the stack as part of its assertion macro
> implementation. For most tests with small to moderately sized tests
> cases there are never enough KUnit assertions to be an issue at all;
> even when a single test cases has many KUnit assertions, the compiler
> should never put all these struct allocations on the stack at the same
> time since the scope of the structs is so limited; however, the
> structleak plugin does not seem to respect the compiler doing the right
> thing and will still warn of excessive stack size in some cases.
> These patches are not a permanent solution since new tests can be added
> with huge test cases, but this serves as a stop gap to stop structleak
> from being used on KUnit tests which will currently result in excessive
> stack size.
> Of the following patches, I think the thunderbolt patch may be
> unnecessary since Linus already fixed that test. Additionally, I was not
> able to reproduce the error on the sdhci-of-aspeed test. Nevertheless, I
> included these tests cases for completeness. Please see my discussion
> with Arnd for more context[1].
> NOTE: Arnd did the legwork for most of these patches, but did not
> actually share code for some of them, so I left his Signed-off-by off of
> those patches as I don't want to misrepresent him. Arnd, please sign off
> on those patches at your soonest convenience.

Thanks a lot for picking up this work where I dropped the ball.

Patches 1-5 look good to me, and I replied on one remaining issue I see
with patch 6. I think you did more work on these that I did, by doing
a nice write-up and splitting them into separate patches with useful
changelogs, you should keep authorship, and just change my
S-o-b to Suggested-by.

If you prefer to keep me as the author, then the correct way would
be to commit them with --author= to ensure that the author and
first s-o-b match.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists