linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/14] Add 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: <20240314-victorious-chupacabra-of-management-baa5c4@houat>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 16:02:00 +0100
From: Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>, 
	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>, 
	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>, 
	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 00/14] Add support for suppressing warning backtraces

On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 07:37:13AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 3/14/24 06:36, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > Hi Günter,
> > 
> > On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 6:03 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> > > Some unit tests intentionally trigger warning backtraces by passing bad
> > > parameters to kernel API functions. Such unit tests typically check the
> > > return value from such 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. Support suppressing multiple
> > > backtraces while at the same time limiting changes to generic code to the
> > > absolute minimum. Architecture specific changes are kept at minimum by
> > > retaining function names only if both CONFIG_DEBUG_BUGVERBOSE and
> > > CONFIG_KUNIT are enabled.
> > > 
> > > The first patch of the series introduces the necessary infrastructure.
> > > The second patch introduces support for counting suppressed backtraces.
> > > This capability is used in patch three to implement unit tests.
> > > Patch four documents the new API.
> > > The next two patches add support for suppressing backtraces in drm_rect
> > > and dev_addr_lists unit tests. These patches are intended to serve as
> > > examples for the use of the functionality introduced with this series.
> > > The remaining patches implement the necessary changes for all
> > > architectures with GENERIC_BUG support.
> > 
> > Thanks for your series!
> > 
> > I gave it a try on m68k, just running backtrace-suppression-test,
> > and that seems to work fine.
> > 
> > > Design note:
> > >    Function pointers are only added to the __bug_table section if both
> > >    CONFIG_KUNIT and CONFIG_DEBUG_BUGVERBOSE are enabled to avoid image
> > >    size increases if CONFIG_KUNIT=n. There would be some benefits to
> > >    adding those pointers all the time (reduced complexity, ability to
> > >    display function names in BUG/WARNING messages). That change, if
> > >    desired, can be made later.
> > 
> > Unfortunately this also increases kernel size in the CONFIG_KUNIT=m
> > case (ca. 80 KiB for atari_defconfig), making it less attractive to have
> > kunit and all tests enabled as modules in my standard kernel.
> > 
> 
> Good point. Indeed, it does. I wanted to avoid adding a configuration option,
> but maybe I should add it after all. How about something like this ?
> 
> +config KUNIT_SUPPRESS_BACKTRACE
> +       bool "KUnit - Enable backtrace suppression"
> +       default y
> +       help
> +         Enable backtrace suppression for KUnit. If enabled, backtraces
> +         generated intentionally by KUnit tests can be suppressed. Disable
> +         to reduce kernel image size if image size is more important than
> +         suppression of backtraces generated by KUnit tests.
> +

How are tests using that API supposed to handle it then?

Select the config option or put an ifdef?

If the former, we end up in the same situation than without the symbol.
If the latter, we end up in a similar situation than disabling KUNIT
entirely, with some tests not being run which is just terrible.

Maxime

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)