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: <CAFd5g45NudtV4Q-ooXStGnEUDYCBbTx2JvkYQn1_mLZNYqnPjA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Aug 2019 14:51:53 -0700
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
To:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
Cc:     shuah <shuah@...nel.org>, 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>,
        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 2:46 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-08-27 10:49:32)
> > 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>
> > ---
>
> Does kunit itself have any meaning if printk doesn't work? Why not just
> depend on CONFIG_PRINTK for now?

I was thinking about that, but I figured it is probably easier in the
long run to make sure it always works without printk.

It also just seemed like the right thing to do, but I suppose that's
not a very good reason.

I am fine with any of the three options: depend on CONFIG_PRINTK - as
suggested by Stephen, just use printk - as suggested by Shuah, or
continue to use vprintk_emit as I have been doing. However, my
preference is the vprintk_emit option.

Anyone have any strong opinions on the matter?