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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14D0FC4321E for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 07:22:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7FC9610C8 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 07:22:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S239569AbhIQHXu (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Sep 2021 03:23:50 -0400 Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.134]:44499 "EHLO mout.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233839AbhIQHXt (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Sep 2021 03:23:49 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-f48.google.com ([209.85.221.48]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (mreue009 [213.165.67.97]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MVvCn-1mHThU09DR-00RmsA; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 09:22:25 +0200 Received: by mail-wr1-f48.google.com with SMTP id t8so13544371wrq.4; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 00:22:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533d2e3gdScN5QoJuVuHz2DYRF7zteoDv/ZILhs3R+Zs+um5rIPy lA4Ip7+pWUtM25EzEtXnDMFfg6L652xbw9nxtxM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzJsrzhqboheOkJF5DSOKul11PbpO1/TRN4PuVM4wUc/lsEjGqfYS2kGw1Iq3DVe/OqQTjG5Qdil3wWKPMut74= X-Received: by 2002:adf:f884:: with SMTP id u4mr9953811wrp.411.1631863344560; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 00:22:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210917061104.2680133-1-brendanhiggins@google.com> <20210917061104.2680133-7-brendanhiggins@google.com> In-Reply-To: <20210917061104.2680133-7-brendanhiggins@google.com> From: Arnd Bergmann Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2021 09:22:08 +0200 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 6/6] bitfield: build kunit tests without structleak plugin To: Brendan Higgins Cc: Shuah Khan , David Gow , Arnd Bergmann , Kees Cook , Rafael Wysocki , Jonathan Cameron , Lars-Peter Clausen , Ulf Hansson , andreas.noever@gmail.com, michael.jamet@intel.com, Mika Westerberg , YehezkelShB@gmail.com, Masahiro Yamada , Michal Marek , Nick Desaulniers , "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" , KUnit Development , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linus Torvalds , gregkh , linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, linux-mmc , USB list , linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kbuild mailing list Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:xGdJUU7Jbd4lvFcJi7VZTkYeXXOYuREu0Ya+f5SVA3D4fcQVzv5 sgRAiCMKKh3ytUEGmD6Dxf7aETOZ0X/pGgsz2AUIrp9kUt5lqMHR7GHL+Y2l01nZH4mzLRC joVrXC9Ab/Y6xXXfTFeXn/bBIdvEQu3XMlqzqp9iyVUBeQ5WSddVw9o3hbB6el/wOUfnBy/ WeuyQDCELhT3LewzUbwBg== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:aaLODG2UnWY=:8UNFcgwItep3KN1dO16puC XIEYICuRxqJbEU5ER23X5Z6PR9LZVEIze8kIOAfxatbqRqyM2PPSFtCH9Igaph7MWx8xiEsW5 InUmTmeETPnUyvoTrIsYwyBBu4M7nHkfkN1VmhFCdizrpkGDyyddhpFuJcaPIPcsqDuIhTzi5 0MAl8jixoNfMFCUpMQP4/RDpXbnHeKSf/tpJ7PMyp2vltwcMoeINfgF+3YNskF1bOCJK9qQB3 fKAnBvxBFhgTn6V9N5ByDxdiUDkdHK5h/XgpNDXbseTxaMpH9uWKvGCPx39I24X38EnfOme3c TwpDCPSGWP5vRzaX3Q5iWlzNpHB0N5+wpfNWbwVTDG8oelEiWrmVXR94m9BlmDdlT50/FhJoB ct0CHugb5GiJtqETF9YSXoKCsm3u4SQbXjmO2o+tiBX/l9OFP5t6MwmSWIdt3elXcpvnJqQLa KLCvwLz7ra1d4eYfxTCxTBHdd+4+rOVi65uqRQx5fiUR/thIRAGduFtgg+rfxbpnJ43v3dWg3 PpCCK+ZVtqT+HCFDouRYyvIaO/6Wqiv95HHcFrzDsCReGfWd6HWHMB40R9RInPuTAGKQZQvTf OIhHpTorZ4zAJNqhgZXMNx61Ws000Db8FJ37sTpRs3Ru/YmZSw+fU6jJmJvk+Vtt7GU4eucxn 97CYR/u/EZOxUG50tu5ZPNz9bLt49JaQLdNMPQZS1K+QeH46LIvn0tgJsgidWXCeBSh7oRImO LLleyzgY0c+YJMwy7qbf+oooD/oC0JLRq7emc0aqeUx6z43yeRCtQ0Xqu11DkdaI2wWQVr1id +rSEvWF1itpoJYTMGv7VXeExWLmTIEf4reCMz5X9IQfMreMgoXpCFbTyCzJtNkP1pmFB6myNi YSjsuQmyeXtyBgUgFYSw== Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-usb@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 8:11 AM Brendan Higgins wrote: > > From: Arnd Bergmann > > The structleak plugin causes the stack frame size to grow immensely: > > lib/bitfield_kunit.c: In function 'test_bitfields_constants': > lib/bitfield_kunit.c:93:1: error: the frame size of 7440 bytes is larger than 2048 bytes [-Werror=frame-larger-than=] > > Turn it off in this file. > > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann > Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins > --- > lib/Makefile | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/lib/Makefile b/lib/Makefile > index 5efd1b435a37c..c93c4b59af969 100644 > --- a/lib/Makefile > +++ b/lib/Makefile > @@ -351,7 +351,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_OBJAGG) += objagg.o > obj-$(CONFIG_PLDMFW) += pldmfw/ > > # KUnit tests > -CFLAGS_bitfield_kunit.o := $(call cc-option,-Wframe-larger-than=10240) > +CFLAGS_bitfield_kunit.o := $(call cc-option,-Wframe-larger-than=10240) $(DISABLE_STRUCTLEAK_PLUGIN) I think the $(call cc-option,-Wframe-larger-than=10240) needs to be dropped here. This was not in my original patch and it is definitely broken on all architectures with 8KB stack size or less if the function needs that much. What is the amount of actual stack usage you observe without this? If we still get a warning, then I think this needs to be fixed in the code. Arnd