On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 2:23 AM Patricia Alfonso <trishalfonso@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 3:44 AM 'Patricia Alfonso' via kasan-dev > > <kasan-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Integrate KASAN into KUnit testing framework. > > > - Fail tests when KASAN reports an error that is not expected > > > - Use KUNIT_EXPECT_KASAN_FAIL to expect a KASAN error in KASAN tests > > > - KUnit struct added to current task to keep track of the current test > > > from KASAN code > > > - Booleans representing if a KASAN report is expected and if a KASAN > > > report is found added to kunit struct > > > - This prints "line# has passed" or "line# has failed" > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Patricia Alfonso <trishalfonso@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > If anyone has any suggestions on how best to print the failure > > > messages, please share! > > > > > > One issue I have found while testing this is the allocation fails in > > > kmalloc_pagealloc_oob_right() sometimes, but not consistently. This > > > does cause the test to fail on the KUnit side, as expected, but it > > > seems to skip all the tests before this one because the output starts > > > with this failure instead of with the first test, kmalloc_oob_right(). > > > > I don't follow this... we don't check output in any way, so how does > > output affect execution?... > > > I'm sorry. I think I was just reading the results wrong before - no > wonder I was confused! > > I just recreated the error and it does work as expected. > > > > > > --- 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?
