linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/14] bug/kunit: Core support for suppressing warning backtraces

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: <202403121500.64A2C02@keescook>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 15:00:58 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Maíra Canal <mcanal@...lia.com>,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
	Daniel Diaz <daniel.diaz@...aro.org>,
	David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>,
	Arthur Grillo <arthurgrillo@...eup.net>,
	Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>,
	Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
	Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
	Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
	Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, loongarch@...ts.linux.dev,
	netdev@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/14] bug/kunit: Core support for suppressing warning
 backtraces

On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 10:02:56AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Some unit tests intentionally trigger warning backtraces by passing
> bad parameters to API functions. Such unit tests typically check the
> return value from those calls, not the existence of the warning backtrace.
> 
> Such intentionally generated warning backtraces are neither desirable
> nor useful for a number of reasons.
> - They can result in overlooked real problems.
> - A warning that suddenly starts to show up in unit tests needs to be
>   investigated and has to be marked to be ignored, for example by
>   adjusting filter scripts. Such filters are ad-hoc because there is
>   no real standard format for warnings. On top of that, such filter
>   scripts would require constant maintenance.
> 
> One option to address problem would be to add messages such as "expected
> warning backtraces start / end here" to the kernel log.  However, that
> would again require filter scripts, it might result in missing real
> problematic warning backtraces triggered while the test is running, and
> the irrelevant backtrace(s) would still clog the kernel log.
> 
> Solve the problem by providing a means to identify and suppress specific
> warning backtraces while executing test code.
> 
> Cc: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
> Cc: Daniel Diaz <daniel.diaz@...aro.org>
> Cc: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>
> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>

Yup, this looks fine to me.

Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>

-- 
Kees Cook