On 2/21/24 02:27, David Gow wrote:
KUnit has several macros which accept a log message, which can contain printf format specifiers. Some of these (the explicit log macros) already use the __printf() gcc attribute to ensure the format specifiers are valid, but those which could fail the test, and hence used __kunit_do_failed_assertion() behind the scenes, did not.
These include:
- KUNIT_EXPECT_*_MSG()
- KUNIT_ASSERT_*_MSG()
- KUNIT_FAIL()
This series adds the __printf() attribute, and fixes all of the issues uncovered. (Or, at least, all of those I could find with an x86_64 allyesconfig, and the default KUnit config on a number of other architectures. Please test!)
The issues in question basically take the following forms:
- int / long / long long confusion: typically a type being updated, but the format string not.
- Use of integer format specifiers (%d/%u/%li/etc) for types like size_t or pointer differences (technically ptrdiff_t), which would only work on some architectures.
- Use of integer format specifiers in combination with PTR_ERR(), where %pe would make more sense.
- Use of empty messages which, whilst technically not incorrect, are not useful and trigger a gcc warning.
We'd like to get these (or equivalent) in for 6.9 if possible, so please do take a look if possible.
Thanks, -- David
Reported-by: Linus Torvalds torvalds@linux-foundation.org Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/CAHk-=wgJMOquDO5f8ShH1f4rzZwzApNVCw6...
Thank you for a quick response David. I will apply the series to kunit next for Linux 6.9 as soon as the reviews are complete.
thanks, -- Shuah