linux-kernel - [PATCH 02/14] kunit: bug: Count suppressed 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: <20240312170309.2546362-3-linux@roeck-us.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 10:02:57 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Cc: David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Maíra Canal <mcanal@...lia.com>,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.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,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Subject: [PATCH 02/14] kunit: bug: Count suppressed warning backtraces

Count suppressed warning backtraces to enable code which suppresses
warning backtraces to check if the expected backtrace(s) have been
observed.

Using atomics for the backtrace count resulted in build errors on some
architectures due to include file recursion, so use a plain integer
for now.

Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
---
 include/kunit/bug.h | 7 ++++++-
 lib/kunit/bug.c     | 4 +++-
 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/kunit/bug.h b/include/kunit/bug.h
index 1e34da961599..2097a854ac8c 100644
--- a/include/kunit/bug.h
+++ b/include/kunit/bug.h
@@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
 struct __suppressed_warning {
 	struct list_head node;
 	const char *function;
+	int counter;
 };
 
 void __start_suppress_warning(struct __suppressed_warning *warning);
@@ -28,7 +29,7 @@ bool __is_suppressed_warning(const char *function);
 
 #define DEFINE_SUPPRESSED_WARNING(func)	\
 	struct __suppressed_warning __kunit_suppress_##func = \
-		{ .function = __stringify(func) }
+		{ .function = __stringify(func), .counter = 0 }
 
 #define START_SUPPRESSED_WARNING(func) \
 	__start_suppress_warning(&__kunit_suppress_##func)
@@ -39,12 +40,16 @@ bool __is_suppressed_warning(const char *function);
 #define IS_SUPPRESSED_WARNING(func) \
 	__is_suppressed_warning(func)
 
+#define SUPPRESSED_WARNING_COUNT(func) \
+	(__kunit_suppress_##func.counter)
+
 #else /* CONFIG_KUNIT */
 
 #define DEFINE_SUPPRESSED_WARNING(func)
 #define START_SUPPRESSED_WARNING(func)
 #define END_SUPPRESSED_WARNING(func)
 #define IS_SUPPRESSED_WARNING(func) (false)
+#define SUPPRESSED_WARNING_COUNT(func) (0)
 
 #endif /* CONFIG_KUNIT */
 #endif /* __ASSEMBLY__ */
diff --git a/lib/kunit/bug.c b/lib/kunit/bug.c
index f93544d7a9d1..13b3d896c114 100644
--- a/lib/kunit/bug.c
+++ b/lib/kunit/bug.c
@@ -32,8 +32,10 @@ bool __is_suppressed_warning(const char *function)
 		return false;
 
 	list_for_each_entry(warning, &suppressed_warnings, node) {
-		if (!strcmp(function, warning->function))
+		if (!strcmp(function, warning->function)) {
+			warning->counter++;
 			return true;
+		}
 	}
 	return false;
 }
-- 
2.39.2