Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] kasan: switch kunit tests to console tracepoints

[Paul Heidekrüger]

Hi all!

On 05.05.2023 09:58, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 1 May 2023 15:02:37 -0700
> Peter Collingbourne <pcc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > > > "ftrace" is really for just the function tracing, but CONFIG_FTRACE
> > > > really should just be for the function tracing infrastructure, and
> > > > perhaps not even include trace events :-/ But at the time it was
> > > > created, it was for all the "tracers" (this was added before trace
> > > > events).  
> > >
> > > It would be great to see this cleaned up. I found this aspect of how
> > > tracing works rather confusing.
> > >
> > > So do you think it makes sense for the KASAN tests to "select TRACING"
> > > for now if the code depends on the trace event infrastructure?  
> > 
> > Any thoughts? It looks like someone else got tripped up by this:
> > https://reviews.llvm.org/D144057
> 
> Yeah, it really does need to get cleaned up, but unfortunately it's not
> going to be a trivial change. We need to make sure it's done in a way that
> an old .config still keeps the same things enabled with the new config
> settings. That takes some trickery in the dependency.
> 
> I'll add this to my todo list, hopefully it doesn't fall into the abyss
> portion of that list :-p
> 
> -- Steve

Just adding to Peter's concern re: CONFIG_KASAN_KUNIT_TEST's dependency on 
CONFIG_TRACEPOINTS.

I'm having no luck running the KASan KUnit tests on arm64 with the following 
.kunitconfig on v6.6.0:

	CONFIG_KUNIT=y
	CONFIG_KUNIT_ALL_TESTS=n
	CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL=y
	CONFIG_KASAN=y
	CINFIG_KASAN_GENERIC=y
	CONFIG_KASAN_KUNIT_TEST=y

CONFIG_TRACEPOINTS, which CONFIG_KASAN_TEST relies on since the patch this 
thread is based on, isn't defined for arm64, AFAICT.

If I comment out the dependency on CONFIG_TRACEPOINTS, the tests appear to run, 
but KUnit isn't picking up the KASan output.

If I revert the patch, the above .kunitconfig appears to work fine on arm64 and 
the tests pass.

The above .kunitconfig works as intended on X86, no changes necessary. 

Am I missing something?

Many thanks,
Paul