Le 20/04/2026 à 8:28 PM, Albert Esteve a écrit :
From: Guenter Roeck <[email protected]>
Add unit tests to verify that warning backtrace suppression works,
covering WARN() and WARN_ON() with direct calls, indirect calls
through helper functions, and multiple warnings in a single window.
If backtrace suppression does _not_ work, the unit tests will likely
trigger unsuppressed backtraces, which should actually help to get
the affected architectures / platforms fixed.
Tested-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Alessandro Carminati <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Albert Esteve <[email protected]>
---
Thanks very much for including tests!
Maybe it'd be nice to test that the suppression is disabled after
KUNIT_END_SUPPRESSED_WARNING(). Of course, then triggering an actual
stacktrace would be a pain, but maybe we could check that
__kunit_is_suppressed_warning() returns false? If you wanted to be
really fancy, you could test that it returns false on another kthread
even while the suppression is active, too, but I won't hold you to it.
Equally, you could try setting up a fake test context and ensuring the
cleanup is called correctly, but I think that's mostly covered by the
existing KUnit resource tests.
Otherwise, looking good. A couple of other minor suggestions below,
which may require some reworking of the __kunit_suppress scope, but all
optional suggestions.
Reviewed-by: David Gow <[email protected]>
lib/kunit/Makefile | 3 ++
lib/kunit/backtrace-suppression-test.c | 90 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 93 insertions(+)
diff --git a/lib/kunit/Makefile b/lib/kunit/Makefile
index fe177ff3ebdef..b2f2b8ada7b71 100644
--- a/lib/kunit/Makefile
+++ b/lib/kunit/Makefile
@@ -23,6 +23,9 @@ obj-$(if $(CONFIG_KUNIT),y) += hooks.o \
obj-$(CONFIG_KUNIT_TEST) += kunit-test.o
obj-$(CONFIG_KUNIT_TEST) += platform-test.o
+ifeq ($(CONFIG_KUNIT_SUPPRESS_BACKTRACE),y)
+obj-$(CONFIG_KUNIT_TEST) += backtrace-suppression-test.o
+endif
# string-stream-test compiles built-in only.
ifeq ($(CONFIG_KUNIT_TEST),y)
diff --git a/lib/kunit/backtrace-suppression-test.c
b/lib/kunit/backtrace-suppression-test.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000..2ba5dcb5fef35
--- /dev/null
+++ b/lib/kunit/backtrace-suppression-test.c
@@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+/*
+ * KUnit test for suppressing warning tracebacks.
+ *
+ * Copyright (C) 2024, Guenter Roeck
+ * Author: Guenter Roeck <[email protected]>
+ */
+
+#include <kunit/test.h>
+#include <linux/bug.h>
+
+static void backtrace_suppression_test_warn_direct(struct kunit *test)
+{
+ KUNIT_START_SUPPRESSED_WARNING(test);
+ WARN(1, "This backtrace should be suppressed");
+ KUNIT_END_SUPPRESSED_WARNING(test);
+
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, KUNIT_SUPPRESSED_WARNING_COUNT(), 1);
+}
+
+static void trigger_backtrace_warn(void)
+{
+ WARN(1, "This backtrace should be suppressed");
+}
+
+static void backtrace_suppression_test_warn_indirect(struct kunit *test)
+{
+ KUNIT_START_SUPPRESSED_WARNING(test);
+ trigger_backtrace_warn();
+ KUNIT_END_SUPPRESSED_WARNING(test);
+
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, KUNIT_SUPPRESSED_WARNING_COUNT(), 1);
+}
+
+static void backtrace_suppression_test_warn_multi(struct kunit *test)
+{
+ KUNIT_START_SUPPRESSED_WARNING(test);
+ WARN(1, "This backtrace should be suppressed");
+ trigger_backtrace_warn();
+ KUNIT_END_SUPPRESSED_WARNING(test);
+
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, KUNIT_SUPPRESSED_WARNING_COUNT(), 2);
Would it make sense to test KUNIT_SUPPRESSED_WARNING_COUNT() more
thoroughly here by checking that it's 0 before any warnings, and
checking that it's 1 in-between the two warnings?
Of course, the first case doesn't work due to __kunit_suppress not being
defined, but if the implementation changes to support this, let's add it
to the test, too.
+}
+
+static void backtrace_suppression_test_warn_on_direct(struct kunit *test)
+{
+ if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_BUGVERBOSE) &&
!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KALLSYMS))
+ kunit_skip(test, "requires CONFIG_DEBUG_BUGVERBOSE or
CONFIG_KALLSYMS");
+
+ KUNIT_START_SUPPRESSED_WARNING(test);
+ WARN_ON(1);
+ KUNIT_END_SUPPRESSED_WARNING(test);
+
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, KUNIT_SUPPRESSED_WARNING_COUNT(), 1);
+}
+
+static void trigger_backtrace_warn_on(void)
+{
+ WARN_ON(1);
+}
+
+static void backtrace_suppression_test_warn_on_indirect(struct kunit *test)
+{
+ if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_BUGVERBOSE))
+ kunit_skip(test, "requires CONFIG_DEBUG_BUGVERBOSE");
+
+ KUNIT_START_SUPPRESSED_WARNING(test);
+ trigger_backtrace_warn_on();
+ KUNIT_END_SUPPRESSED_WARNING(test);
+
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, KUNIT_SUPPRESSED_WARNING_COUNT(), 1);
+}
+
+static struct kunit_case backtrace_suppression_test_cases[] = {
+ KUNIT_CASE(backtrace_suppression_test_warn_direct),
+ KUNIT_CASE(backtrace_suppression_test_warn_indirect),
+ KUNIT_CASE(backtrace_suppression_test_warn_multi),
+ KUNIT_CASE(backtrace_suppression_test_warn_on_direct),
+ KUNIT_CASE(backtrace_suppression_test_warn_on_indirect),
+ {}
+};
+
+static struct kunit_suite backtrace_suppression_test_suite = {
+ .name = "backtrace-suppression-test",
+ .test_cases = backtrace_suppression_test_cases,
+};
+kunit_test_suites(&backtrace_suppression_test_suite);
+
+MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
+MODULE_DESCRIPTION("KUnit test to verify warning backtrace suppression");
