linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] clk: Disable KUNIT_UML

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aUEb+kYnmwV7j82I@shlinux89>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2025 16:44:42 +0800
From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....nxp.com>
To: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>,
	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Weißschuh <thomas.weissschuh@...utronix.de>,
	Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Brian Masney <bmasney@...hat.com>, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: Disable KUNIT_UML_PCI

Hi David, Johannes

On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 04:46:39PM +0800, David Gow wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Nov 2025 at 15:44, Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > commit 031cdd3bc3f3 ("kunit: Enable PCI on UML without triggering WARN()")
>> > causes clk gate test fail. Deselect KUNIT_UML_PCI to avoid the failure.
>>
>> While probably _true_ that this "caused" it, it also seems a bit
>> dishonest to blame it on that without giving any information as to why
>> the clk tests trigger some edge case or so?
>>
>> FTR, the warning only happens when you pass an address to ioread(),
>> iowrite() or similar that wasn't obtained from ioremap(). Which ought to
>> not be valid, and I'm pretty convinced that a unit test should never
>> even end up here.
>>
>> So no, I don't think this is a valid change, I think the clk unit tests
>> that end up doing readl() in the gate code for a non-existing device are
>> broken.
>
>Yeah, the correct solution here is definitely to rework the test to not do this.
>
>Unfortunately, I don't think there's a really pleasant way of faking
>these in KUnit tests, but a path forward might involve logic_iomem
>(possibly with some changes). Otherwise, reworking the test to put
>these writes behind a function which can be mocked would be nice.
>
>Ultimately, I don't have a problem with us disabling this in the
>meantime for clk tests -- ultimately it's up to clk folks what their
>test config is, and having tests which always fail isn't great -- but
>it'd be nice to eliminate the cast-a-random-pointer-to-iomem hacks in
>tests.

Sorry for late reply. Is it an acceptable short term fix for you if I drop the
fixes tag?

Thanks,
Peng

>
>Cheers,
>-- David