Hi Dan, On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 05:42:17PM -0500, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Mon, Nov 06, 2023 at 02:58:12PM +0100, mripard@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > But a similar thing is happening here where we have so many bogus > > > warnings that we missed a real bug. > > > > IIRC, there was a similar discussion for lockdep issues. IMO, any > > (unintended) warning should trigger a test failure. > > > > I guess that would require adding some intrumentation to __WARN somehow, > > and also allowing tests to check whether a warning had been generated > > during their execution for tests that want to trigger one. > > I think this is a good idea. I was looking at how lockdep prints > warnings (see print_circular_bug_header()). It doesn't use WARN() it > prints a bunch of pr_warn() statements and then a stack trace. We would > have to have a increment the counter manually in that situation. > > I'm writing a script to parse a dmesg and collect Oopses. Do we need to? I was only expecting a boolean to be set or kunit_fail to be called in the WARN/lockdep warning code path if a test is running? > So now I know to look for WARN(), lockdep, and KASAN. What other bugs > formats do we have? Probably someone like the syzbot devs have already > has written a script like this? I think you got most of it covered, I can't think of any other source of failure right now. Maxime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
