Re: [PATCH v3 7/7] kunit: Add tests for fault

[David Gow <davidgow@google.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2914 bytes --]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 at 21:36, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
>
> On 4/22/24 06:08, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 04:38:01PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 03:33:49PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 11:48:57AM +0100, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> >>>> Add a test case to check NULL pointer dereference and make sure it would
> >>>> result as a failed test.
> >>>>
> >>>> The full kunit_fault test suite is marked as skipped when run on UML
> >>>> because it would result to a kernel panic.
> >>>>
> >>>> Tested with:
> >>>> ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --arch x86_64 kunit_fault
> >>>> ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --arch arm64 \
> >>>>    --cross_compile=aarch64-linux-gnu- kunit_fault
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> What is the rationale for adding those tests unconditionally whenever
> >>> CONFIG_KUNIT_TEST is enabled ? This completely messes up my test system
> >>> because it concludes that it is pointless to continue testing
> >>> after the "Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference" backtrace.
> >>> At the same time, it is all or nothing, meaning I can not disable
> >>> it but still run other kunit tests.
> >>>
> >
> > CONFIG_KUNIT_TEST is to test KUnit itself.  Why does this messes up your
> > test system, and what is your test system?  Is it related to the kernel
> > warning and then the message you previously sent?
>
> It is not a warning, it is a BUG which terminates the affected kernel thread.
> NULL pointer dereferences are normally fatal, which is why I abort tests
> if one is encountered. I am not going to start introducing code into my
> scripts to ignore such warnings (or BUG messages) on a case by case basis;
> this would be unmaintainable.
>
> > https://lore.kernel.org/r/fd604ae0-5630-4745-acf2-1e51c69cf0c0@roeck-us.net
> > It seems David has a solution to suppress such warning.
> >
>
> I don't think so. My series tried to suppress warning backtraces, not BUG
> messages. BUG messages can not easily be suppressed since the reaction is
> architecture specific and typically fatal.
>
> As I said below, never mind, I just disabled CONFIG_KUNIT_TEST in my testing.
>
> Guenter
>

I think it probably makes sense to permit disabling the fault tests
independently, at least until we have a way of suppressing the
warnings.

I've sent out a patch to add a CONFIG_KUNIT_FAULT_TEST option to
disable these tests. Would that help?
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20240423090808.242389-1-davidgow@google.com/

(The other option is to split the tests out into a totally separate
file / module. I think that's an option (and would make the config
option more consistent with other test options) but since they're
otherwise part of the KUnit tests, I think I prefer to keep them
together.)

Cheers,
-- David

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4014 bytes --]