linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] lib/test_vmalloc.c: introduce xfail for failing tests

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: <f2dcafff-1be7-461f-baab-020f8a06b351@amd.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2025 14:39:11 +0530
From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@....com>
To: urezki@...il.com
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, urezki@...il.com,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, Dev Jain <dev.jain@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lib/test_vmalloc.c: introduce xfail for failing tests



On 7/2/2025 1:43 PM, Dev Jain wrote:
> 
> On 02/07/25 1:38 pm, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 7/2/2025 12:18 PM, Dev Jain wrote:
>>>
>>> On 02/07/25 12:13 pm, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>>>> The test align_shift_alloc_test is expected to fail.
>>>> Reporting the test as fail confuses to be a genuine failure.
>>>> Introduce widely used xfail sematics to address the issue.
>>>>
>>>> Note: a warn_alloc dump similar to below is still expected:
>>>>
>>>>   Call Trace:
>>>>    <TASK>
>>>>    dump_stack_lvl+0x64/0x80
>>>>    warn_alloc+0x137/0x1b0
>>>>    ? __get_vm_area_node+0x134/0x140
>>>>
>>>> Snippet of dmesg after change:
>>>>
>>>> Summary: random_size_align_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 ..
>>>> Summary: align_shift_alloc_test passed: 0 failed: 0 xfailed: 1 ..
>>>> Summary: pcpu_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 ..
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@....com>
>>>> ---
>>>
>>> Thanks for doing this, been thinking about this for so long but
>>> I'm lazy : )
>>
>> :)
>>
>>>
>>>>   lib/test_vmalloc.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++---------------
>>>>   1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/lib/test_vmalloc.c b/lib/test_vmalloc.c
>>>> index 1b0b59549aaf..649f352e2046 100644
>>>> --- a/lib/test_vmalloc.c
>>>> +++ b/lib/test_vmalloc.c
>>>> @@ -396,25 +396,27 @@ vm_map_ram_test(void)
>>>>   struct test_case_desc {
>>>>       const char *test_name;
>>>>       int (*test_func)(void);
>>>> +    bool xfail;
>>>>   };
>>>>   static struct test_case_desc test_case_array[] = {
>>>> -    { "fix_size_alloc_test", fix_size_alloc_test },
>>>> -    { "full_fit_alloc_test", full_fit_alloc_test },
>>>> -    { "long_busy_list_alloc_test", long_busy_list_alloc_test },
>>>> -    { "random_size_alloc_test", random_size_alloc_test },
>>>> -    { "fix_align_alloc_test", fix_align_alloc_test },
>>>> -    { "random_size_align_alloc_test", random_size_align_alloc_test },
>>>> -    { "align_shift_alloc_test", align_shift_alloc_test },
>>>> -    { "pcpu_alloc_test", pcpu_alloc_test },
>>>> -    { "kvfree_rcu_1_arg_vmalloc_test", 
>>>> kvfree_rcu_1_arg_vmalloc_test },
>>>> -    { "kvfree_rcu_2_arg_vmalloc_test", 
>>>> kvfree_rcu_2_arg_vmalloc_test },
>>>> -    { "vm_map_ram_test", vm_map_ram_test },
>>>> +    { "fix_size_alloc_test", fix_size_alloc_test, },
>>>> +    { "full_fit_alloc_test", full_fit_alloc_test, },
>>>> +    { "long_busy_list_alloc_test", long_busy_list_alloc_test, },
>>>> +    { "random_size_alloc_test", random_size_alloc_test, },
>>>> +    { "fix_align_alloc_test", fix_align_alloc_test, },
>>>> +    { "random_size_align_alloc_test", random_size_align_alloc_test, },
>>>> +    { "align_shift_alloc_test", align_shift_alloc_test, true },
>>>> +    { "pcpu_alloc_test", pcpu_alloc_test, },
>>>> +    { "kvfree_rcu_1_arg_vmalloc_test", 
>>>> kvfree_rcu_1_arg_vmalloc_test, },
>>>> +    { "kvfree_rcu_2_arg_vmalloc_test", 
>>>> kvfree_rcu_2_arg_vmalloc_test, },
>>>> +    { "vm_map_ram_test", vm_map_ram_test, },
>>>>       /* Add a new test case here. */
>>>>   };
>>>
>>> Why this change?
>>
>> Perhaps not entirely necessary except for align_shift_alloc_test line,
>> still updated the field since one more bool field added. But let me know
>> if you are okay with current state OR need a respin for that?
> 
> Oh now I saw the "true", I thought you were adding commas for no reason.
> 
> I think that's fine then, but will let Uladzislau decide.
> 
> 

Uladzislau,

Do you think this patch would be useful? and above change is okay?

Thanks and regards
- Raghu