linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] kunit: fix failure to build without printk

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]

Message-ID: <CAFd5g473nZAfM4D=Vkr54O_+nn=MSt3dzuDcXzNMZGRDWg1nxA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Aug 2019 14:03:27 -0700
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
To:     shuah <shuah@...nel.org>
Cc:     kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] kunit: fix failure to build without printk

On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 1:21 PM shuah <shuah@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On 8/27/19 11:49 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > Previously KUnit assumed that printk would always be present, which is
> > not a valid assumption to make. Fix that by ifdefing out functions which
> > directly depend on printk core functions similar to what dev_printk
> > does.
> >
> > Reported-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/0352fae9-564f-4a97-715a-fabe016259df@kernel.org/T/#t
> > Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
> > Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
> > ---
> >   include/kunit/test.h |  7 +++++++
> >   kunit/test.c         | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> >   2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h
> > index 8b7eb03d4971..339af5f95c4a 100644
> > --- a/include/kunit/test.h
> > +++ b/include/kunit/test.h
> > @@ -339,9 +339,16 @@ static inline void *kunit_kzalloc(struct kunit *test, size_t size, gfp_t gfp)
[...]
> Okay after reviewing this, I am not sure why you need to do all
> this.
>
> Why can't you just change the root function that throws the warn:
>
>   static int kunit_vprintk_emit(int level, const char *fmt, va_list args)
> {
>          return vprintk_emit(0, level, NULL, 0, fmt, args);
> }
>
> You aren'r really doing anything extra here, other than calling
> vprintk_emit()

Yeah, I did that a while ago. I think it was a combination of trying
to avoid an extra layer of adding and then removing the log level, and
that's what dev_printk and friends did.

But I think you are probably right. It's a lot of maintenance overhead
to get rid of that. Probably best to just use what the printk people
have.

> Unless I am missing something, can't you solve this problem by including
> printk.h and let it handle the !CONFIG_PRINTK case?

Randy, I hope you don't mind, but I am going to ask you to re-ack my
next revision since it basically addresses the problem in a totally
different way.