Hi Andrey, On 2/9/21 5:26 PM, Andrey Konovalov wrote: > On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 6:07 PM Catalin Marinas <catalin.mari...@arm.com> > wrote: >> >> On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 04:02:25PM +0100, Andrey Konovalov wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 1:16 PM Vincenzo Frascino >>> <vincenzo.frasc...@arm.com> wrote: >>>> On 2/9/21 12:02 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 04:56:17PM +0000, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: >>>>>> diff --git a/lib/test_kasan.c b/lib/test_kasan.c >>>>>> index 7285dcf9fcc1..f82d9630cae1 100644 >>>>>> --- a/lib/test_kasan.c >>>>>> +++ b/lib/test_kasan.c >>>>>> @@ -51,6 +51,10 @@ static int kasan_test_init(struct kunit *test) >>>>>> kunit_err(test, "can't run KASAN tests with KASAN >>>>>> disabled"); >>>>>> return -1; >>>>>> } >>>>>> + if (kasan_flag_async) { >>>>>> + kunit_err(test, "can't run KASAN tests in async mode"); >>>>>> + return -1; >>>>>> + } >>>>>> >>>>>> multishot = kasan_save_enable_multi_shot(); >>>>>> hw_set_tagging_report_once(false); >>>>> >>>>> I think we can still run the kasan tests in async mode if we check the >>>>> TFSR_EL1 at the end of each test by calling mte_check_tfsr_exit(). >>>>> >>>> >>>> IIUC this was the plan for the future. But I let Andrey comment for more >>>> details. >>> >>> If it's possible to implement, then it would be good to have. Doesn't >>> have to be a part of this series though. >> >> I think it can be part of this series but after the 5.12 merging window >> (we are a few days away from final 5.11 and I don't think we should >> rush the MTE kernel async support in). >> >> It would be nice to have the kasan tests running with async by the time >> we merge the patches (at a quick look, I think it's possible but, of >> course, we may hit some blockers when implementing it). > > OK, sounds good. > > If it's possible to put an explicit check for tag faults at the end of > each test, then adding async support shouldn't be hard. > > Note, that some of the tests trigger bugs that are detected via > explicit checks within KASAN. For example, KASAN checks that a pointer > that's being freed points to a start of a slab object, or that the > object is accessible when it gets freed, etc. I don't see this being a > problem, so just FYI. >
Once you have your patches ready please send them to me and I will repost another version. In the meantime I will address the remaining comments. > Thanks! > -- Regards, Vincenzo