On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 08:01:44PM +0530, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote:
> Some arch configs (like ppc64) enable CONFIG_PRINTK_CALLER, which
> adds the caller id as part of the dmesg. Due to this, even though
> the expected vs observed are same, end testcase results are failed.
>
> -% insmod test_modules/test_klp_livepatch.ko
> -livepatch: enabling patch 'test_klp_livepatch'
> -livepatch: 'test_klp_livepatch': initializing patching transition
> -livepatch: 'test_klp_livepatch': starting patching transition
> -livepatch: 'test_klp_livepatch': completing patching transition
> -livepatch: 'test_klp_livepatch': patching complete
> -% echo 0 > /sys/kernel/livepatch/test_klp_livepatch/enabled
> -livepatch: 'test_klp_livepatch': initializing unpatching transition
> -livepatch: 'test_klp_livepatch': starting unpatching transition
> -livepatch: 'test_klp_livepatch': completing unpatching transition
> -livepatch: 'test_klp_livepatch': unpatching complete
> -% rmmod test_klp_livepatch
> +[ T3659] % insmod test_modules/test_klp_livepatch.ko
> +[ T3682] livepatch: enabling patch 'test_klp_livepatch'
> +[ T3682] livepatch: 'test_klp_livepatch': initializing patching transition
> +[ T3682] livepatch: 'test_klp_livepatch': starting patching transition
> +[ T826] livepatch: 'test_klp_livepatch': completing patching transition
> +[ T826] livepatch: 'test_klp_livepatch': patching complete
> +[ T3659] % echo 0 > /sys/kernel/livepatch/test_klp_livepatch/enabled
> +[ T3659] livepatch: 'test_klp_livepatch': initializing unpatching transition
> +[ T3659] livepatch: 'test_klp_livepatch': starting unpatching transition
> +[ T789] livepatch: 'test_klp_livepatch': completing unpatching transition
> +[ T789] livepatch: 'test_klp_livepatch': unpatching complete
> +[ T3659] % rmmod test_klp_livepatch
>
> ERROR: livepatch kselftest(s) failed
> not ok 1 selftests: livepatch: test-livepatch.sh # exit=1
>
> Currently the check_result() handles the "[time]" removal from
> the dmesg. Enhance the check to handle removal of "[Tid]" also.
>
> Signed-off-by: Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/livepatch/functions.sh | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/livepatch/functions.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/livepatch/functions.sh
> index e5d06fb40233..a1730c1864a4 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/livepatch/functions.sh
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/livepatch/functions.sh
> @@ -306,7 +306,8 @@ function check_result {
> result=$(dmesg | awk -v last_dmesg="$LAST_DMESG" 'p; $0 == last_dmesg { p=1 }' | \
> grep -e 'livepatch:' -e 'test_klp' | \
> grep -v '\(tainting\|taints\) kernel' | \
> - sed 's/^\[[ 0-9.]*\] //')
> + sed 's/^\[[ 0-9.]*\] //' | \
> + sed 's/^\[[ ]*T[0-9]*\] //')
Thanks for adding this to the filter.
If I read the PRINTK_CALLER docs correctly, there is a potential CPU
identifier as well. Are there any instances where the livepatching code
will use the "[C$processor_id]" (out of task context) prefix? Or would
it hurt to future proof with [CT][0-9]?
Acked-by: Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
Joe
>
> if [[ "$expect" == "$result" ]] ; then
> echo "ok"
> --
> 2.47.0
>
