Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-100845-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 15:00:58 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Cc: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, David Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?Ma=EDra?= Canal <mcanal@igalia.com>,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>,
	Daniel Diaz <daniel.diaz@linaro.org>,
	David Gow <davidgow@google.com>,
	Arthur Grillo <arthurgrillo@riseup.net>,
	Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@linux.dev>,
	Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org>,
	Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>,
	Ville =?iso-8859-1?Q?Syrj=E4l=E4?= <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
	Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com,
	linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, loongarch@lists.linux.dev,
	netdev@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/14] bug/kunit: Core support for suppressing warning
 backtraces
Message-ID: <202403121500.64A2C02@keescook>
References: <20240312170309.2546362-1-linux@roeck-us.net>
 <20240312170309.2546362-2-linux@roeck-us.net>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240312170309.2546362-2-linux@roeck-us.net>

On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 10:02:56AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Some unit tests intentionally trigger warning backtraces by passing
> bad parameters to API functions. Such unit tests typically check the
> return value from those 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.
> 
> Cc: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
> Cc: Daniel Diaz <daniel.diaz@linaro.org>
> Cc: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org>
> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>

Yup, this looks fine to me.

Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>

-- 
Kees Cook