[PATCH 0/9] kunit: Fix printf format specifier issues in KUnit assertions

[Shuah Khan]

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 at linux-foundation.org>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/CAHk-=wgJMOquDO5f8ShH1f4rzZwzApNVCw643m5-Yj+BfsFstA@mail.gmail.com/
> 
>

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