Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 14:20:34 -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@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/15] Add support for suppressing warning backtraces

On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 06:19:21AM -0700, Guenter Roeck 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.
> 
> With CONFIG_KUNIT enabled, image size increase with this series applied is
> approximately 1%. The image size increase (and with it the functionality
> introduced by this series) can be avoided by disabling
> CONFIG_KUNIT_SUPPRESS_BACKTRACE.
> 
> This series is based on the RFC patch and subsequent discussion at
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-kselftest/patch/02546e59-1afe-4b08-ba81-d94f3b691c9a@moroto.mountain/
> and offers a more comprehensive solution of the problem discussed there.
> 
> Design note:
>   Function pointers are only added to the __bug_table section if both
>   CONFIG_KUNIT_SUPPRESS_BACKTRACE and CONFIG_DEBUG_BUGVERBOSE are enabled
>   to avoid image size increases if CONFIG_KUNIT is disabled. 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.
> 
> Checkpatch note:
>   Remaining checkpatch errors and warnings were deliberately ignored.
>   Some are triggered by matching coding style or by comments interpreted
>   as code, others by assembler macros which are disliked by checkpatch.
>   Suggestions for improvements are welcome.
> 
> Changes since RFC:
> - Introduced CONFIG_KUNIT_SUPPRESS_BACKTRACE
> - Minor cleanups and bug fixes
> - Added support for all affected architectures
> - Added support for counting suppressed warnings
> - Added unit tests using those counters
> - Added patch to suppress warning backtraces in dev_addr_lists tests
> 
> Changes since v1:
> - Rebased to v6.9-rc1
> - Added Tested-by:, Acked-by:, and Reviewed-by: tags
>   [I retained those tags since there have been no functional changes]
> - Introduced KUNIT_SUPPRESS_BACKTRACE configuration option, enabled by
>   default.
> 
> Changes since v2:
> - Rebased to v6.9-rc2
> - Added comments to drm warning suppression explaining why it is needed.
> - Added patch to move conditional code in arch/sh/include/asm/bug.h
>   to avoid kerneldoc warning
> - Added architecture maintainers to Cc: for architecture specific patches
> - No functional changes
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Guenter Roeck (15):
>       bug/kunit: Core support for suppressing warning backtraces
>       kunit: bug: Count suppressed warning backtraces
>       kunit: Add test cases for backtrace warning suppression
>       kunit: Add documentation for warning backtrace suppression API
>       drm: Suppress intentional warning backtraces in scaling unit tests
>       net: kunit: Suppress lock warning noise at end of dev_addr_lists tests
>       x86: Add support for suppressing warning backtraces
>       arm64: Add support for suppressing warning backtraces
>       loongarch: Add support for suppressing warning backtraces
>       parisc: Add support for suppressing warning backtraces
>       s390: Add support for suppressing warning backtraces
>       sh: Add support for suppressing warning backtraces
>       sh: Move defines needed for suppressing warning backtraces
>       riscv: Add support for suppressing warning backtraces
>       powerpc: Add support for suppressing warning backtraces

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

(for x86 and um)

I was planning to add warning suppression for the "overflow" KUnit
tests, but it seems the vmalloc routines aren't calling warn_alloc() any
more for impossible sizes. So, I think, no patches needed for
lib/overflow_kunit.c, but at the end of the day, I've tested this series
is working for me. :P

-- 
Kees Cook

Powered by blists - more mailing lists