[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <s4blvjs4ipcqdzodmgsbvgegqh2kxgdnoerpwthvc57hpsulu5@gb2kh7vbv7nq>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2023 14:58:12 +0100
From: mripard@...nel.org
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Cc: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
Richard Fitzgerald <rf@...nsource.cirrus.com>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Daniel Díaz <daniel.diaz@...aro.org>,
Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>,
David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>,
Maíra Canal <mcanal@...lia.com>,
Arthur Grillo <arthurgrillo@...eup.net>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com>,
kv-team <kv-team@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] drm/tests: annotate intentional stack trace in
drm_test_rect_calc_hscale()
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 01, 2023 at 12:08:00PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> Let me add Richard to the CC list. See lore for more details.
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/CA+G9fYuA643RHHpPnz9Ww7rr3zV5a0y=7_uFcybBSL=QP_sQvQ@mail.gmail.com/
>
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 09:57:48PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 at 14:33, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > We have started printing more and more intentional stack traces. Whether
> > > it's testing KASAN is able to detect use after frees or it's part of a
> > > kunit test.
> > >
> > > These stack traces can be problematic. They suddenly show up as a new
> > > failure. Now the test team has to contact the developers. A bunch of
> > > people have to investigate the bug. We finally decide that it's
> > > intentional so now the test team has to update their filter scripts to
> > > mark it as intentional. These filters are ad-hoc because there is no
> > > standard format for warnings.
> > >
> > > A better way would be to mark it as intentional from the start.
> > >
> > > Here, I have marked the beginning and the end of the trace. It's more
> > > tricky for things like lkdtm_FORTIFY_MEM_MEMBER() where the flow doesn't
> > > reach the end of the function. I guess I would print a different
> > > warning for stack traces that can't have a
> > > "Intentional warning finished\n" message at the end.
> > >
> > > I haven't actually tested this patch... Daniel, do you have a
> > > list of intentional stack traces we could annotate?
> >
> > [My two cents]
> >
> > I have been noticing following kernel warnings / BUGs
>
> Some are intentional and some are not. I had a similar thing happen to
> me last week where I had too many Smatch false positives in my devel
> code so I accidentally sent a patch with a stupid bug. I've since
> updated my QC process to run both the devel and released versions of
> Smatch.
>
> But a similar thing is happening here where we have so many bogus
> warnings that we missed a real bug.
IIRC, there was a similar discussion for lockdep issues. IMO, any
(unintended) warning should trigger a test failure.
I guess that would require adding some intrumentation to __WARN somehow,
and also allowing tests to check whether a warning had been generated
during their execution for tests that want to trigger one.
Maxime
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists