Hi Bill, sorry for the long delay.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 12:48:51PM -0700, Bill Wendling wrote: > On Sun, Aug 23, 2026 at 11:41 PM Thomas Weißschuh > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Aug 23, 2026 at 12:35:33PM +0000, Bill Wendling wrote: > > > Add a custom KUnit test suite 'stacktrace_counted_by' to verify that the > > > __counted_by_ptr annotation on the 'entries' field of 'struct stack_trace' > > > behaves correctly. > > > > The implementation of __counted_by_ptr should be tested by a dedicated > > unittest > > for that feature. And I am fairly sure that already exists. It should not be > > tested in random subsystems. > > > I'm looking at `tools/unittests` and...what in the world is it > supposed to be testing? This seems to be testing the documentation generator. An assumption which is corroborated by 'git log'. > It looks like it's testing absolutely nothing of substance. Debatable... > I assume you want there to be a test that runs and > produces a stack trace triggered by an invalid access, right? Correct. > I'm unable to find any tests in `tools/unittests` that do anything like > that...maybe I'm missing something? Look for KUnit tests instead. For example lib/tests/fortify_kunit.c. Or non-KUnit tests in lib/test_fortify/. Or LKDTM tests in drivers/misc/lkdtm/. Also see Kees' recent message about testing traps with KUnit [0]. Apparently it is not so easy to test this from KUnit. But your proposed stack_trace-specific test would have run into the same issues. [0] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/202609041620.81446C2A@keescook/ (...) Thomas
