On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 19:08, Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 6:50 PM Marco Elver <elver@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 18:10, <andrey.konovalov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > From: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > set_memory_rw/ro() are not exported to be used in modules and thus > > > cannot be used in KUnit-compatible KASAN tests. > > > > > > Drop the checks that rely on these functions. > > > > > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > lib/test_kasan.c | 6 ------ > > > 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/test_kasan.c b/lib/test_kasan.c > > > index ef99d81fe8b3..448194bbc41d 100644 > > > --- a/lib/test_kasan.c > > > +++ b/lib/test_kasan.c > > > @@ -1083,12 +1083,6 @@ static void vmalloc_helpers_tags(struct kunit *test) > > > KUNIT_ASSERT_TRUE(test, is_vmalloc_addr(ptr)); > > > KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, vmalloc_to_page(ptr)); > > > > > > - /* Make sure vmalloc'ed memory permissions can be changed. */ > > > - rv = set_memory_ro((unsigned long)ptr, 1); > > > - KUNIT_ASSERT_GE(test, rv, 0); > > > - rv = set_memory_rw((unsigned long)ptr, 1); > > > - KUNIT_ASSERT_GE(test, rv, 0); > > > > You can still test it by checking 'ifdef MODULE'. You could add a > > separate test which is skipped if MODULE is defined. Does that work? > > Yes, putting it under ifdef will work. I thought that having a > discrepancy between built-in and module tests is weird, but I see the > kprobes tests doing this, so maybe it's not such a bad idea. Will do > in v2. Additionally you could have the test skip with kunit_skip(), so it's at least visible. The code itself has to be #ifdef'd I guess because set_memory_*() aren't even declared ifdef MODULE (I think?).
