LKML Archive on
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Arnd Bergmann <>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <>, Kees Cook <>,
	Brendan Higgins <>,
	Shuah Khan <>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <>,
	Alan Maguire <>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <>,
	Mika Westerberg <>,
	Vitor Massaru Iha <>,,,
Subject: [RFC 0/3] kunit vs structleak
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 13:45:25 +0100
Message-ID: <> (raw)

From: Arnd Bergmann <>

I ran into a couple of problems with kunit tests taking too much stack
space, sometimes dangerously so. These the the three instances that
cause an increase over the warning limit of some architectures:

lib/bitfield_kunit.c:93:1: error: the frame size of 7440 bytes is larger than 2048 bytes [-Werror=frame-larger-than=]
drivers/base/test/property-entry-test.c:481:1: error: the frame size of 2640 bytes is larger than 2048 bytes [-Werror=frame-larger-than=]
drivers/thunderbolt/test.c:1529:1: error: the frame size of 1176 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes [-Werror=frame-larger-than=]

Ideally there should be a way to rewrite the kunit infrastructure
that avoids the explosion of stack data when the structleak plugin
is used.

A rather drastic measure would be to use Kconfig logic to make
the two options mutually exclusive. This would clearly work, but
is probably not needed.

As a simpler workaround, this disables the plugin for the three
files in which the excessive stack usage was observed.


Arnd Bergmann (3):
  bitfield: build kunit tests without structleak plugin
  drivers/base: build kunit tests without structleak plugin
  thunderbolt: build kunit tests without structleak plugin

 drivers/base/test/Makefile   | 1 +
 drivers/thunderbolt/Makefile | 1 +
 lib/Makefile                 | 1 +
 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+)

Cc: Kees Cook <>
Cc: Brendan Higgins <>
Cc: Shuah Khan <>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <>
Cc: Alan Maguire <>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <>
Cc: Mika Westerberg <>
Cc: Vitor Massaru Iha <>

             reply index

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-01-25 12:45 Arnd Bergmann [this message]
2021-01-25 12:45 ` [RFC 1/3] bitfield: build kunit tests without structleak plugin Arnd Bergmann
2021-01-25 12:45 ` [RFC 2/3] drivers/base: " Arnd Bergmann
2021-01-25 12:45 ` [RFC 3/3] thunderbolt: " Arnd Bergmann
2021-01-27 12:53   ` Mika Westerberg
2021-01-27 20:15 ` [RFC 0/3] kunit vs structleak Kees Cook
2021-01-29 21:29   ` Brendan Higgins

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

LKML Archive on

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror lkml/git/0.git
	git clone --mirror lkml/git/1.git
	git clone --mirror lkml/git/2.git
	git clone --mirror lkml/git/3.git
	git clone --mirror lkml/git/4.git
	git clone --mirror lkml/git/5.git
	git clone --mirror lkml/git/6.git
	git clone --mirror lkml/git/7.git
	git clone --mirror lkml/git/8.git
	git clone --mirror lkml/git/9.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 lkml lkml/ \
	public-inbox-index lkml

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:

AGPL code for this site: git clone