[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <n37j6cbsogluma25crzruaiq7qcslnjeoroyybsy3vw2cokpcm@mh7r3ocp24cb>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2023 17:37:38 +0100
From: Paul Heidekrüger <paul.heidekrueger@....de>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Peter Collingbourne <pcc@...gle.com>,
Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>, andrey.konovalov@...ux.dev,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...il.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@...il.com>,
kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] kasan: switch kunit tests to console tracepoints
Hi all!
On 05.05.2023 09:58, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 1 May 2023 15:02:37 -0700
> Peter Collingbourne <pcc@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "ftrace" is really for just the function tracing, but CONFIG_FTRACE
> > > > really should just be for the function tracing infrastructure, and
> > > > perhaps not even include trace events :-/ But at the time it was
> > > > created, it was for all the "tracers" (this was added before trace
> > > > events).
> > >
> > > It would be great to see this cleaned up. I found this aspect of how
> > > tracing works rather confusing.
> > >
> > > So do you think it makes sense for the KASAN tests to "select TRACING"
> > > for now if the code depends on the trace event infrastructure?
> >
> > Any thoughts? It looks like someone else got tripped up by this:
> > https://reviews.llvm.org/D144057
>
> Yeah, it really does need to get cleaned up, but unfortunately it's not
> going to be a trivial change. We need to make sure it's done in a way that
> an old .config still keeps the same things enabled with the new config
> settings. That takes some trickery in the dependency.
>
> I'll add this to my todo list, hopefully it doesn't fall into the abyss
> portion of that list :-p
>
> -- Steve
Just adding to Peter's concern re: CONFIG_KASAN_KUNIT_TEST's dependency on
CONFIG_TRACEPOINTS.
I'm having no luck running the KASan KUnit tests on arm64 with the following
.kunitconfig on v6.6.0:
CONFIG_KUNIT=y
CONFIG_KUNIT_ALL_TESTS=n
CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL=y
CONFIG_KASAN=y
CINFIG_KASAN_GENERIC=y
CONFIG_KASAN_KUNIT_TEST=y
CONFIG_TRACEPOINTS, which CONFIG_KASAN_TEST relies on since the patch this
thread is based on, isn't defined for arm64, AFAICT.
If I comment out the dependency on CONFIG_TRACEPOINTS, the tests appear to run,
but KUnit isn't picking up the KASan output.
If I revert the patch, the above .kunitconfig appears to work fine on arm64 and
the tests pass.
The above .kunitconfig works as intended on X86, no changes necessary.
Am I missing something?
Many thanks,
Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists