From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> To: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> Cc: Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>, marc.zyngier@arm.com, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Quentin Casasnovas <quentin.casasnovas@oracle.com>, Kostya Serebryany <kcc@google.com>, syzkaller <syzkaller@googlegroups.com>, Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: allow building with kcov coverage on ARM64 Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 16:05:58 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20160615150558.GB7971@leverpostej> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CACT4Y+bqx9LyMxvnD-f6vs3MuTxQJkuPMirz4vfDe8NpfoTUHw@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 04:36:18PM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > > However, it looks like I missed a warning from the kernel build system, > > and my toolchain doesn't actually support -fsanitize-coverage=trace-pc, > > so I'm not going to be able to test that further. > > > > It would be great if we could deliberately not register the debugfs file > > when there was no compiler support for the feature, for those like me > > who miss the build time warning. We do something like that for the LSE > > atomics on arm64. > > Hi Mark, > > It's a common problem and it would be great to detect this. > But I think it's better to return ENOTSUP from open rather than not > registering the file at all. This way higher level tools will be able > to more easily diagnose the issue and properly report to user. A > missing file looks like not mounted debugfs (which another common > issue). I have no strong feeling either way, so long as we don't silently carry on in a case that makes no sense. > I am not sure how to do it. > Compiler does not provide any define for this option. And I am not > familiar enough with kernel makefiles. Would it be possible to add a > define to CLAGS in the makefile along with printing the warning? If you follow the arm64 LSE example, you can do something like the below. Note that this relies on CFLAGS_KCOV being cleared when not supported by the toolchain. I used ENOTSUPP rather than ENOTSUP as there's no standard definition for the later in the Linux headers. Mark. ---->8---- diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile index 0f70de6..e6ef260 100644 --- a/Makefile +++ b/Makefile @@ -369,7 +369,7 @@ LDFLAGS_MODULE = CFLAGS_KERNEL = AFLAGS_KERNEL = CFLAGS_GCOV = -fprofile-arcs -ftest-coverage -fno-tree-loop-im -Wno-maybe-uninitialized -CFLAGS_KCOV = -fsanitize-coverage=trace-pc +CFLAGS_KCOV = -fsanitize-coverage=trace-pc -DCONFIG_KCOV_CC # Use USERINCLUDE when you must reference the UAPI directories only. diff --git a/kernel/kcov.c b/kernel/kcov.c index a02f2dd..df2cafd 100644 --- a/kernel/kcov.c +++ b/kernel/kcov.c @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@ #define DISABLE_BRANCH_PROFILING #include <linux/compiler.h> #include <linux/types.h> +#include <linux/errno.h> #include <linux/file.h> #include <linux/fs.h> #include <linux/mm.h> @@ -160,6 +161,13 @@ static int kcov_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *filep) { struct kcov *kcov; + /* + * CONFIG_KCOV was selected, but the compiler does not support the + * options KCOV requires. + */ + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KCOV_CC)) + return -ENOTSUPP; + kcov = kzalloc(sizeof(*kcov), GFP_KERNEL); if (!kcov) return -ENOMEM;
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland) To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: [PATCH v2] arm64: allow building with kcov coverage on ARM64 Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 16:05:58 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20160615150558.GB7971@leverpostej> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CACT4Y+bqx9LyMxvnD-f6vs3MuTxQJkuPMirz4vfDe8NpfoTUHw@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 04:36:18PM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > > However, it looks like I missed a warning from the kernel build system, > > and my toolchain doesn't actually support -fsanitize-coverage=trace-pc, > > so I'm not going to be able to test that further. > > > > It would be great if we could deliberately not register the debugfs file > > when there was no compiler support for the feature, for those like me > > who miss the build time warning. We do something like that for the LSE > > atomics on arm64. > > Hi Mark, > > It's a common problem and it would be great to detect this. > But I think it's better to return ENOTSUP from open rather than not > registering the file at all. This way higher level tools will be able > to more easily diagnose the issue and properly report to user. A > missing file looks like not mounted debugfs (which another common > issue). I have no strong feeling either way, so long as we don't silently carry on in a case that makes no sense. > I am not sure how to do it. > Compiler does not provide any define for this option. And I am not > familiar enough with kernel makefiles. Would it be possible to add a > define to CLAGS in the makefile along with printing the warning? If you follow the arm64 LSE example, you can do something like the below. Note that this relies on CFLAGS_KCOV being cleared when not supported by the toolchain. I used ENOTSUPP rather than ENOTSUP as there's no standard definition for the later in the Linux headers. Mark. ---->8---- diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile index 0f70de6..e6ef260 100644 --- a/Makefile +++ b/Makefile @@ -369,7 +369,7 @@ LDFLAGS_MODULE = CFLAGS_KERNEL = AFLAGS_KERNEL = CFLAGS_GCOV = -fprofile-arcs -ftest-coverage -fno-tree-loop-im -Wno-maybe-uninitialized -CFLAGS_KCOV = -fsanitize-coverage=trace-pc +CFLAGS_KCOV = -fsanitize-coverage=trace-pc -DCONFIG_KCOV_CC # Use USERINCLUDE when you must reference the UAPI directories only. diff --git a/kernel/kcov.c b/kernel/kcov.c index a02f2dd..df2cafd 100644 --- a/kernel/kcov.c +++ b/kernel/kcov.c @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@ #define DISABLE_BRANCH_PROFILING #include <linux/compiler.h> #include <linux/types.h> +#include <linux/errno.h> #include <linux/file.h> #include <linux/fs.h> #include <linux/mm.h> @@ -160,6 +161,13 @@ static int kcov_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *filep) { struct kcov *kcov; + /* + * CONFIG_KCOV was selected, but the compiler does not support the + * options KCOV requires. + */ + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KCOV_CC)) + return -ENOTSUPP; + kcov = kzalloc(sizeof(*kcov), GFP_KERNEL); if (!kcov) return -ENOMEM;
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-15 15:06 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2016-06-14 16:57 [PATCH v2] arm64: allow building with kcov coverage on ARM64 Alexander Potapenko 2016-06-14 16:57 ` Alexander Potapenko 2016-06-14 17:16 ` Alexander Potapenko 2016-06-14 17:16 ` Alexander Potapenko 2016-06-14 17:55 ` Mark Rutland 2016-06-14 17:55 ` Mark Rutland 2016-06-14 18:16 ` Alexander Potapenko 2016-06-14 18:16 ` Alexander Potapenko 2016-06-15 9:25 ` Mark Rutland 2016-06-15 9:25 ` Mark Rutland 2016-06-15 11:44 ` Mark Rutland 2016-06-15 11:44 ` Mark Rutland 2016-06-15 11:53 ` Alexander Potapenko 2016-06-15 11:53 ` Alexander Potapenko 2016-06-15 14:25 ` Mark Rutland 2016-06-15 14:25 ` Mark Rutland 2016-06-15 14:36 ` Dmitry Vyukov 2016-06-15 14:36 ` Dmitry Vyukov 2016-06-15 15:05 ` Mark Rutland [this message] 2016-06-15 15:05 ` Mark Rutland 2016-06-15 15:16 ` Dmitry Vyukov 2016-06-15 15:16 ` Dmitry Vyukov 2016-06-16 10:47 ` James Morse 2016-06-16 10:47 ` James Morse 2016-06-16 15:20 ` Alexander Potapenko 2016-06-16 15:20 ` Alexander Potapenko 2016-06-16 15:44 ` Mark Rutland 2016-06-16 15:44 ` Mark Rutland 2016-06-16 16:25 ` Catalin Marinas 2016-06-16 16:25 ` Catalin Marinas 2016-06-16 16:32 ` Mark Rutland 2016-06-16 16:32 ` Mark Rutland 2016-06-16 16:36 ` Alexander Potapenko 2016-06-16 16:36 ` Alexander Potapenko 2016-06-16 16:36 ` James Morse 2016-06-16 16:36 ` James Morse 2016-06-16 16:39 ` Catalin Marinas 2016-06-16 16:39 ` Catalin Marinas
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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20160615150558.GB7971@leverpostej \ --to=mark.rutland@arm.com \ --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \ --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \ --cc=christoffer.dall@linaro.org \ --cc=dvyukov@google.com \ --cc=glider@google.com \ --cc=kcc@google.com \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=marc.zyngier@arm.com \ --cc=quentin.casasnovas@oracle.com \ --cc=syzkaller@googlegroups.com \ --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.