On 1/15/25 11:40 PM, Joe Lawrence wrote:
> 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$processor_id]" (out of task context) prefix? Or would
> it hurt to future proof with [CT][0-9]?
Thanks for the review.
yeah, saw that case, but in my current build and boot test, seen only the Thread-id added,
so sent out to fix that. I did not get to add a test to create "processor id" scenario,
so cant test it at this point.
Maddy
>
> Acked-by: Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> --
> Joe
>
>>
>> if [[ "$expect" == "$result" ]] ; then
>> echo "ok"
>> --
>> 2.47.0
>>
>
