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=-8.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=no 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 12F97C3F2D1 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 06:23:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7D38214D8 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 06:23:56 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="HBrmEvdV" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727390AbgCDGXz (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Mar 2020 01:23:55 -0500 Received: from mail-qv1-f65.google.com ([209.85.219.65]:33759 "EHLO mail-qv1-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725271AbgCDGXz (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Mar 2020 01:23:55 -0500 Received: by mail-qv1-f65.google.com with SMTP id p3so321328qvq.0 for ; Tue, 03 Mar 2020 22:23:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=9rIcuItk/t0HMMdxbMcrzdoYnAXfgWsnodSuFT2EgNI=; b=HBrmEvdVsAvyY8mE22JX9d+oGnKWDDKD/2V00s0FfVmdNkIYiqIAa01Nj5qN2cKJ6h nfViDJBV/rE4Gvpb+txw9uCf9da1fWuhyd+pnYkoPAiok+8f06PbMA96EkEwY68frEwh gPw9k5y9txAYY832kj2oBOnU/kN6LeM0ZL27ptiE7Vle2Gl23ZBueZNnggwj8rjP3wbd slEH9NJKMWvNtAQkWozM+E81TyfLV6DPlVq1ct89+BbYjfzrROYv26Voxu0Sf3lyeDmG pYOCtuqr7NzRQHPK4jMzySI/fNcUl71dlDXTTO8J8zZF/EdXgJbW8M3gra5uEjTZSOaW 53ag== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=9rIcuItk/t0HMMdxbMcrzdoYnAXfgWsnodSuFT2EgNI=; b=e1FOGQ4Vy0cVZugDLTq43SZSN9zev1nQu2znHXmdjgXzfQw807ym4SpZVFcKdFD9id JbJdixTdH6+CDwEfuehc1Fws7TVLvJVT70vUJFv/MNABW0N5Hd/h0jwVcqcB/eCJDL75 Yss2vYhR6Vhq+2ntJCEDq7v3tgpuvG7DCJU/jEIdsI8ySpwPRB42/82HpMq7yIP0efo6 i3kowTpQvTEFfa43zs/xei1S51mxtO1jkCq6fwkGX6WxG5O4KBroU+POhXMGY3jQg7uz XPTDRPI2SCdU5fil47HT7BiRdC1ZI1rpfNIRyiZ4+qPrmRGXe9ac7h7Ou66P3Pt0I/3B fLQA== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ1+T/IkmeQMBc4yN4MxMWZvnGdEocKrvA5qCQnaSVYwNxhiI4nw 8pOJpBLjQiB+U34RAa5yW4WTeR6i3xNjHZib9Eicag== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vuRqg+f4hP66/2nwgjx8Y7TUcReJYsdYGYkJLt1h3ZWESqgqRyCvSdkefETTgE2y14bY3hxD7iTIhDC09HT4aI= X-Received: by 2002:a0c:f892:: with SMTP id u18mr906230qvn.159.1583303032372; Tue, 03 Mar 2020 22:23:52 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200227024301.217042-1-trishalfonso@google.com> <20200227024301.217042-2-trishalfonso@google.com> In-Reply-To: From: Dmitry Vyukov Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2020 07:23:41 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] KUnit: KASAN Integration To: Patricia Alfonso Cc: Andrey Ryabinin , Brendan Higgins , David Gow , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Juri Lelli , Vincent Guittot , LKML , kasan-dev , "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" , kunit-dev@googlegroups.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 2:26 AM Patricia Alfonso wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 10:29 PM Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > > > > On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 2:23 AM Patricia Alfonso > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 3:44 AM 'Patricia Alfonso' via kasan-dev > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py > > > > > +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py > > > > > @@ -141,7 +141,7 @@ class LinuxSourceTree(object): > > > > > return True > > > > > > > > > > def run_kernel(self, args=[], timeout=None, build_dir=''): > > > > > - args.extend(['mem=256M']) > > > > > + args.extend(['mem=256M', 'kasan_multi_shot']) > > > > > > > > This is better done somewhere else (different default value if > > > > KASAN_TEST is enabled or something). Or overridden in the KASAN tests. > > > > Not everybody uses tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py and this seems > > > > to be a mandatory part now. This means people will always hit this, be > > > > confused, figure out they need to flip the value, and only then be > > > > able to run kunit+kasan. > > > > > > > I agree. Is the best way to do this with "bool multishot = > > > kasan_save_enable_multi_shot();" and > > > "kasan_restore_multi_shot(multishot);" inside test_kasan.c like what > > > was done in the tests before? > > > > This will fix KASAN tests, but not non-KASAN tests running under KUNIT > > and triggering KASAN reports. > > You set kasan_multi_shot for all KUNIT tests. I am reading this as > > that we don't want to abort on the first test that triggered a KASAN > > report. Or not? > > I don't think I understand the question, but let me try to explain my > thinking and see if that resonates with you. We know that the KASAN > tests will require more than one report, and we want that. For most > users, since a KASAN error can cause unexpected kernel behavior for > anything after a KASAN error, it is best for just one unexpected KASAN > error to be the only error printed to the user, unless they specify > kasan-multi-shot. The way I understand it, the way to implement this > is to use "bool multishot = kasan_save_enable_multi_shot();" and > "kasan_restore_multi_shot(multishot);" around the KASAN tests so that > kasan-multi-shot is temporarily enabled for the tests we expect > multiple reports. I assume "kasan_restore_multi_shot(multishot);" > restores the value to what the user input was so after the KASAN tests > are finished, if the user did not specify kasan-multi-shot and an > unexpected kasan error is reported, it will print the full report and > only that first one. Is this understanding correct? If you have a > better way of implementing this or a better expected behavior, I > appreciate your thoughts. Everything you say is correct. What I tried to point at is that this new behavior is different from the original behavior of your change. Initially you added kasan_multi_shot to command line for _all_ kunit tests (not just KASAN). The question is: do we want kasan_multi_shot for non-KASAN tests or not?