From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9543CC433F5 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 18:08:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234892AbiBVSJI (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Feb 2022 13:09:08 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:53856 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234883AbiBVSJF (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Feb 2022 13:09:05 -0500 Received: from mail-il1-x12e.google.com (mail-il1-x12e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12e]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD634172263 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 10:08:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-il1-x12e.google.com with SMTP id w4so2192495ilj.5 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 10:08:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=3MFpylEeTI6XidlITe8mkhmRrO1Ymt6z5H1OOXcy0qU=; b=E5GkLf4qEy+uKhfmwS9E+yY1OvOjM1XyV9x8NZY2UhTf9bgOMa0QvRvedtcLDR+t3t V4aWKPJ9Cq4nD7p1Gbp5uPVOkxIjJFOvVBwZyCv8MzT/QpVDlPSFBn8+NhETz8XE2rxy wYtZrVu/zkVfJUCaBJu6Gtklzoo1hdnzyRh7+hznLDVwsaj+Ul11+1dmSImsuBVKNbPS K0Zu5f+gkNZJqOwFHwt3YY60+QymuMa8qPIXYAYRV64/ZvoWztNDDTMuyiMNt59UNKGC zgQH/49PZmFlZEXWRwmwewEQTwIUiHq3rsoZ7XWhs/a5jJn5uyZXXqrA/CK4NFJY15Uu 2Vlg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3MFpylEeTI6XidlITe8mkhmRrO1Ymt6z5H1OOXcy0qU=; b=5xNr0UPkJAUgeJQcfXkaDr9fJk03EuRq3A1xEqy4bjkE/YPrtJV0o8Xsy9llSQCYi4 k4j4vJfJiuLgN5wlkrstbbJ8gQYamFSnaKow3EPU/GmD1RJAaEFARSnVYWh4nb8uqSPl 2P+vqsRmiNaFwXuReSRQ83NRPCiMfHVVzrO2MXNb/qIrsBLJx6M/4OSybMyJ+l2BOmwJ 6bXpn7U0eR4Q4q2eXK2eeJFpbeq6S3y/MWwPEsJHtp4fQvAabqyAVhWdHpCAKKmvMI7S rQdZDWjemMFrCU1+QXhftNv7wqAJzdq/JGTwM9OakDOj4pfqGyOlGubCuAz60HFCPoPk mTLg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531xt7ForTQtWlo5sidOqsOnBCwW4AcSXS1WtOkh4Rab76jatk3v PaFfvziyGD9XcvGbJyy4gZxtPN4uEaA/qZe4MKs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwHc7J+f7tj6fV7sYNacLBeV6cwmCJjs7Rt2xuMtzr0WDHDAbVMmhP5P27yvx+DPuvIVYaPzUBJ4R4RgCjJBxI= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:190c:b0:2c2:6851:bce3 with SMTP id w12-20020a056e02190c00b002c26851bce3mr2988283ilu.28.1645553318268; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 10:08:38 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <2d44632c4067be35491b58b147a4d1329fdfcf16.1645549750.git.andreyknvl@google.com> In-Reply-To: From: Andrey Konovalov Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 19:08:27 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH mm] another fix for "kasan: improve vmalloc tests" To: Marco Elver Cc: andrey.konovalov@linux.dev, Andrew Morton , Alexander Potapenko , Dmitry Vyukov , Andrey Ryabinin , kasan-dev , Linux Memory Management List , LKML , Andrey Konovalov , kernel test robot Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 6:50 PM Marco Elver wrote: > > On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 18:10, wrote: > > > > From: Andrey Konovalov > > > > set_memory_rw/ro() are not exported to be used in modules and thus > > cannot be used in KUnit-compatible KASAN tests. > > > > Drop the checks that rely on these functions. > > > > Reported-by: kernel test robot > > Signed-off-by: Andrey Konovalov > > --- > > lib/test_kasan.c | 6 ------ > > 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/lib/test_kasan.c b/lib/test_kasan.c > > index ef99d81fe8b3..448194bbc41d 100644 > > --- a/lib/test_kasan.c > > +++ b/lib/test_kasan.c > > @@ -1083,12 +1083,6 @@ static void vmalloc_helpers_tags(struct kunit *test) > > KUNIT_ASSERT_TRUE(test, is_vmalloc_addr(ptr)); > > KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, vmalloc_to_page(ptr)); > > > > - /* Make sure vmalloc'ed memory permissions can be changed. */ > > - rv = set_memory_ro((unsigned long)ptr, 1); > > - KUNIT_ASSERT_GE(test, rv, 0); > > - rv = set_memory_rw((unsigned long)ptr, 1); > > - KUNIT_ASSERT_GE(test, rv, 0); > > You can still test it by checking 'ifdef MODULE'. You could add a > separate test which is skipped if MODULE is defined. Does that work? Yes, putting it under ifdef will work. I thought that having a discrepancy between built-in and module tests is weird, but I see the kprobes tests doing this, so maybe it's not such a bad idea. Will do in v2.