Perform basic validation about layout randomization and initialization
tracking when using CONFIG_RANDSTRUCT=y. Tested using:
$ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run \
--kconfig_add CONFIG_RANDSTRUCT_FULL=y \
randstruct
[17:22:30] ================= randstruct (2 subtests) ==================
[17:22:30] [PASSED] randstruct_layout
[17:22:30] [PASSED] randstruct_initializers
[17:22:30] =================== [PASSED] randstruct ====================
[17:22:30] ============================================================
[17:22:30] Testing complete. Ran 2 tests: passed: 2
[17:22:30] Elapsed time: 5.091s total, 0.001s configuring, 4.974s building, 0.086s running
Adding "--make_option LLVM=1" can be used to test Clang, which also
passes.
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org>
---
Cc: Bill Wendling <morbo@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Cc: Nick Desaulniers <nick.desaulniers+lkml@gmail.com>
Cc: Justin Stitt <justinstitt@google.com>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Cc: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Cc: Rae Moar <rmoar@google.com>
Cc: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@gmail.com>
Cc: Diego Vieira <diego.daniel.professional@gmail.com>
Cc: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Cc: <llvm@lists.linux.dev>
---
MAINTAINERS | 1 +
lib/Kconfig.debug | 8 +
lib/tests/Makefile | 1 +
lib/tests/randstruct_kunit.c | 283 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4 files changed, 293 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 lib/tests/randstruct_kunit.c
diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index fa1e04e87d1d..aeb3e7911852 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -12879,6 +12879,7 @@ F: include/linux/overflow.h
F: include/linux/randomize_kstack.h
F: include/linux/ucopysize.h
F: kernel/configs/hardening.config
+F: lib/tests/randstruct_kunit.c
F: lib/tests/usercopy_kunit.c
F: mm/usercopy.c
F: security/Kconfig.hardening
diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug
index f9051ab610d5..6479cec900c7 100644
--- a/lib/Kconfig.debug
+++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug
@@ -2863,6 +2863,14 @@ config OVERFLOW_KUNIT_TEST
If unsure, say N.
+config RANDSTRUCT_KUNIT_TEST
+ tristate "Test randstruct structure layout randomization at runtime" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
+ depends on KUNIT
+ default KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
+ help
+ Builds unit tests for the checking CONFIG_RANDSTRUCT=y, which
+ randomizes structure layouts.
+
config STACKINIT_KUNIT_TEST
tristate "Test level of stack variable initialization" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
depends on KUNIT
diff --git a/lib/tests/Makefile b/lib/tests/Makefile
index 5a4794c1826e..56d645014482 100644
--- a/lib/tests/Makefile
+++ b/lib/tests/Makefile
@@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_MEMCPY_KUNIT_TEST) += memcpy_kunit.o
CFLAGS_overflow_kunit.o = $(call cc-disable-warning, tautological-constant-out-of-range-compare)
obj-$(CONFIG_OVERFLOW_KUNIT_TEST) += overflow_kunit.o
obj-$(CONFIG_PRINTF_KUNIT_TEST) += printf_kunit.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_RANDSTRUCT_KUNIT_TEST) += randstruct_kunit.o
obj-$(CONFIG_SCANF_KUNIT_TEST) += scanf_kunit.o
obj-$(CONFIG_SIPHASH_KUNIT_TEST) += siphash_kunit.o
obj-$(CONFIG_SLUB_KUNIT_TEST) += slub_kunit.o
diff --git a/lib/tests/randstruct_kunit.c b/lib/tests/randstruct_kunit.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..6fc23dfa57b6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/lib/tests/randstruct_kunit.c
@@ -0,0 +1,283 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
+/*
+ * Test cases for struct randomization, i.e. CONFIG_RANDSTRUCT=y.
+ *
+ * For example, see:
+ * "Running tests with kunit_tool" at Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/start.rst
+ * ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run randstruct [--raw_output] \
+ * [--make_option LLVM=1] \
+ * --kconfig_add CONFIG_RANDSTRUCT_FULL=y
+ *
+ */
+#define pr_fmt(fmt) KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt
+
+#include <kunit/test.h>
+#include <linux/init.h>
+#include <linux/kernel.h>
+#include <linux/module.h>
+#include <linux/string.h>
+
+#define DO_MANY_MEMBERS(macro, args...) \
+ macro(a, args) \
+ macro(b, args) \
+ macro(c, args) \
+ macro(d, args) \
+ macro(e, args) \
+ macro(f, args) \
+ macro(g, args) \
+ macro(h, args)
+
+#define do_enum(x, ignored) MEMBER_NAME_ ## x,
+enum randstruct_member_names {
+ DO_MANY_MEMBERS(do_enum)
+ MEMBER_NAME_MAX,
+};
+/* Make sure the macros are working: want 8 test members. */
+_Static_assert(MEMBER_NAME_MAX == 8);
+
+/* This is an unsigned long member to match the function pointer size */
+#define unsigned_long_member(x, ignored) unsigned long x;
+struct randstruct_untouched {
+ DO_MANY_MEMBERS(unsigned_long_member)
+};
+
+/* Struct explicitly marked with __randomize_layout. */
+struct randstruct_shuffled {
+ DO_MANY_MEMBERS(unsigned_long_member)
+} __randomize_layout;
+#undef unsigned_long_member
+
+/* Struct implicitly randomized from being all func ptrs. */
+#define func_member(x, ignored) size_t (*x)(int);
+struct randstruct_funcs_untouched {
+ DO_MANY_MEMBERS(func_member)
+} __no_randomize_layout;
+
+struct randstruct_funcs_shuffled {
+ DO_MANY_MEMBERS(func_member)
+};
+#undef func_member
+
+#define func_body(x, ignored) \
+static noinline size_t func_##x(int arg) \
+{ \
+ return offsetof(struct randstruct_funcs_untouched, x); \
+}
+DO_MANY_MEMBERS(func_body)
+
+/* Various mixed types. */
+#define mixed_members \
+ bool a; \
+ short b; \
+ unsigned int c __aligned(16); \
+ size_t d; \
+ char e; \
+ u64 f; \
+ union { \
+ struct randstruct_shuffled shuffled; \
+ uintptr_t g; \
+ }; \
+ union { \
+ void *ptr; \
+ char h; \
+ };
+
+struct randstruct_mixed_untouched {
+ mixed_members
+};
+
+struct randstruct_mixed_shuffled {
+ mixed_members
+} __randomize_layout;
+#undef mixed_members
+
+struct contains_randstruct_untouched {
+ int before;
+ struct randstruct_untouched untouched;
+ int after;
+};
+
+struct contains_randstruct_shuffled {
+ int before;
+ struct randstruct_shuffled shuffled;
+ int after;
+};
+
+static void randstruct_layout(struct kunit *test)
+{
+ int mismatches;
+
+#define check_mismatch(x, untouched, shuffled) \
+ if (offsetof(untouched, x) != offsetof(shuffled, x)) \
+ mismatches++; \
+ kunit_info(test, #shuffled "::" #x " @ %zu (vs %zu)\n", \
+ offsetof(shuffled, x), \
+ offsetof(untouched, x)); \
+
+#define check_pair(outcome, untouched, shuffled) \
+ mismatches = 0; \
+ DO_MANY_MEMBERS(check_mismatch, untouched, shuffled) \
+ kunit_info(test, "Differing " #untouched " vs " #shuffled " member positions: %d\n", \
+ mismatches); \
+ KUNIT_##outcome##_MSG(test, mismatches, 0, \
+ #untouched " vs " #shuffled " layouts: unlucky or broken?\n");
+
+ check_pair(EXPECT_EQ, struct randstruct_untouched, struct randstruct_untouched)
+ check_pair(EXPECT_GT, struct randstruct_untouched, struct randstruct_shuffled)
+ check_pair(EXPECT_GT, struct randstruct_untouched, struct randstruct_funcs_shuffled)
+ check_pair(EXPECT_GT, struct randstruct_funcs_untouched, struct randstruct_funcs_shuffled)
+ check_pair(EXPECT_GT, struct randstruct_mixed_untouched, struct randstruct_mixed_shuffled)
+#undef check_pair
+
+#undef check_mismatch
+}
+
+#define check_mismatch(x, ignore) \
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, untouched->x, shuffled->x, \
+ "Mismatched member value in %s initializer\n", \
+ name);
+
+static void test_check_init(struct kunit *test, const char *name,
+ struct randstruct_untouched *untouched,
+ struct randstruct_shuffled *shuffled)
+{
+ DO_MANY_MEMBERS(check_mismatch)
+}
+
+static void test_check_mixed_init(struct kunit *test, const char *name,
+ struct randstruct_mixed_untouched *untouched,
+ struct randstruct_mixed_shuffled *shuffled)
+{
+ DO_MANY_MEMBERS(check_mismatch)
+}
+#undef check_mismatch
+
+#define check_mismatch(x, ignore) \
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, untouched->untouched.x, \
+ shuffled->shuffled.x, \
+ "Mismatched member value in %s initializer\n", \
+ name);
+static void test_check_contained_init(struct kunit *test, const char *name,
+ struct contains_randstruct_untouched *untouched,
+ struct contains_randstruct_shuffled *shuffled)
+{
+ DO_MANY_MEMBERS(check_mismatch)
+}
+#undef check_mismatch
+
+#define check_mismatch(x, ignore) \
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ_MSG(test, untouched->x, shuffled->x, \
+ "Mismatched member value in %s initializer\n", \
+ name);
+
+static void test_check_funcs_init(struct kunit *test, const char *name,
+ struct randstruct_funcs_untouched *untouched,
+ struct randstruct_funcs_shuffled *shuffled)
+{
+ DO_MANY_MEMBERS(check_mismatch)
+}
+#undef check_mismatch
+
+static void randstruct_initializers(struct kunit *test)
+{
+#define init_members \
+ .a = 1, \
+ .b = 3, \
+ .c = 5, \
+ .d = 7, \
+ .e = 11, \
+ .f = 13, \
+ .g = 17, \
+ .h = 19,
+ struct randstruct_untouched untouched = {
+ init_members
+ };
+ struct randstruct_shuffled shuffled = {
+ init_members
+ };
+ struct randstruct_mixed_untouched mixed_untouched = {
+ init_members
+ };
+ struct randstruct_mixed_shuffled mixed_shuffled = {
+ init_members
+ };
+ struct contains_randstruct_untouched contains_untouched = {
+ .untouched = {
+ init_members
+ },
+ };
+ struct contains_randstruct_shuffled contains_shuffled = {
+ .shuffled = {
+ init_members
+ },
+ };
+#define func_member(x, ignored) \
+ .x = func_##x,
+ struct randstruct_funcs_untouched funcs_untouched = {
+ DO_MANY_MEMBERS(func_member)
+ };
+ struct randstruct_funcs_shuffled funcs_shuffled = {
+ DO_MANY_MEMBERS(func_member)
+ };
+
+ test_check_init(test, "named", &untouched, &shuffled);
+ test_check_init(test, "unnamed", &untouched,
+ &(struct randstruct_shuffled){
+ init_members
+ });
+
+ test_check_contained_init(test, "named", &contains_untouched, &contains_shuffled);
+ test_check_contained_init(test, "unnamed", &contains_untouched,
+ &(struct contains_randstruct_shuffled){
+ .shuffled = (struct randstruct_shuffled){
+ init_members
+ },
+ });
+
+ test_check_contained_init(test, "named", &contains_untouched, &contains_shuffled);
+ test_check_contained_init(test, "unnamed copy", &contains_untouched,
+ &(struct contains_randstruct_shuffled){
+ /* full struct copy initializer */
+ .shuffled = shuffled,
+ });
+
+ test_check_mixed_init(test, "named", &mixed_untouched, &mixed_shuffled);
+ test_check_mixed_init(test, "unnamed", &mixed_untouched,
+ &(struct randstruct_mixed_shuffled){
+ init_members
+ });
+
+ test_check_funcs_init(test, "named", &funcs_untouched, &funcs_shuffled);
+ test_check_funcs_init(test, "unnamed", &funcs_untouched,
+ &(struct randstruct_funcs_shuffled){
+ DO_MANY_MEMBERS(func_member)
+ });
+
+#undef func_member
+#undef init_members
+}
+
+static int randstruct_test_init(struct kunit *test)
+{
+ if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RANDSTRUCT))
+ kunit_skip(test, "Not built with CONFIG_RANDSTRUCT=y");
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static struct kunit_case randstruct_test_cases[] = {
+ KUNIT_CASE(randstruct_layout),
+ KUNIT_CASE(randstruct_initializers),
+ {}
+};
+
+static struct kunit_suite randstruct_test_suite = {
+ .name = "randstruct",
+ .init = randstruct_test_init,
+ .test_cases = randstruct_test_cases,
+};
+
+kunit_test_suites(&randstruct_test_suite);
+
+MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Test cases for struct randomization");
+MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
--
2.34.1On Sun, 27 Apr 2025 at 09:38, Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org> wrote: > > Perform basic validation about layout randomization and initialization > tracking when using CONFIG_RANDSTRUCT=y. Tested using: > > $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run \ > --kconfig_add CONFIG_RANDSTRUCT_FULL=y \ > randstruct > [17:22:30] ================= randstruct (2 subtests) ================== > [17:22:30] [PASSED] randstruct_layout > [17:22:30] [PASSED] randstruct_initializers > [17:22:30] =================== [PASSED] randstruct ==================== > [17:22:30] ============================================================ > [17:22:30] Testing complete. Ran 2 tests: passed: 2 > [17:22:30] Elapsed time: 5.091s total, 0.001s configuring, 4.974s building, 0.086s running > > Adding "--make_option LLVM=1" can be used to test Clang, which also > passes. > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org> > --- This works here for me. I'm a little wary of the prospect of the "unlucky or broken" message making the test fail if we're just unlucky, but it seems unlikely enough that we can deal with it later if it ever becomes a problem. Acked-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com> Cheers, -- David
On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 03:44:01PM +0800, David Gow wrote: > On Sun, 27 Apr 2025 at 09:38, Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > Perform basic validation about layout randomization and initialization > > tracking when using CONFIG_RANDSTRUCT=y. Tested using: > > > > $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run \ > > --kconfig_add CONFIG_RANDSTRUCT_FULL=y \ > > randstruct > > [17:22:30] ================= randstruct (2 subtests) ================== > > [17:22:30] [PASSED] randstruct_layout > > [17:22:30] [PASSED] randstruct_initializers > > [17:22:30] =================== [PASSED] randstruct ==================== > > [17:22:30] ============================================================ > > [17:22:30] Testing complete. Ran 2 tests: passed: 2 > > [17:22:30] Elapsed time: 5.091s total, 0.001s configuring, 4.974s building, 0.086s running > > > > Adding "--make_option LLVM=1" can be used to test Clang, which also > > passes. > > > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org> > > --- > > This works here for me. I'm a little wary of the prospect of the > "unlucky or broken" message making the test fail if we're just > unlucky, but it seems unlikely enough that we can deal with it later > if it ever becomes a problem. > > Acked-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com> Thanks! Yeah, I wonder if it might be an interesting adjustment to the shuffling to make sure it isn't a no-op? Like, it would shuffle with the original hash, and if it's a no-op, it could permute the hash again, and then try again? Hmmm... -- Kees Cook
Hi Kees,
kernel test robot noticed the following build warnings:
[auto build test WARNING on kees/for-next/hardening]
[also build test WARNING on linus/master v6.15-rc3 next-20250424]
[cannot apply to akpm-mm/mm-nonmm-unstable soc/for-next]
[If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch#_base_tree_information]
url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Kees-Cook/randstruct-gcc-plugin-Remove-bogus-void-member/20250427-093946
base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kees/linux.git for-next/hardening
patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250427013836.877214-2-kees%40kernel.org
patch subject: [PATCH 2/3] lib/tests: Add randstruct KUnit test
config: powerpc64-randconfig-002-20250427 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250427/202504271552.T3fbs0XC-lkp@intel.com/config)
compiler: clang version 17.0.6 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project 6009708b4367171ccdbf4b5905cb6a803753fe18)
reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250427/202504271552.T3fbs0XC-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)
If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
| Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
| Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202504271552.T3fbs0XC-lkp@intel.com/
All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
>> lib/tests/randstruct_kunit.c:36:36: warning: '_Static_assert' with no message is a C2x extension [-Wc2x-extensions]
36 | _Static_assert(MEMBER_NAME_MAX == 8);
| ^
| , ""
1 warning generated.
vim +/_Static_assert +36 lib/tests/randstruct_kunit.c
19
20 #define DO_MANY_MEMBERS(macro, args...) \
21 macro(a, args) \
22 macro(b, args) \
23 macro(c, args) \
24 macro(d, args) \
25 macro(e, args) \
26 macro(f, args) \
27 macro(g, args) \
28 macro(h, args)
29
30 #define do_enum(x, ignored) MEMBER_NAME_ ## x,
31 enum randstruct_member_names {
32 DO_MANY_MEMBERS(do_enum)
33 MEMBER_NAME_MAX,
34 };
35 /* Make sure the macros are working: want 8 test members. */
> 36 _Static_assert(MEMBER_NAME_MAX == 8);
37
--
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki
Hi Kees,
kernel test robot noticed the following build errors:
[auto build test ERROR on kees/for-next/hardening]
[also build test ERROR on linus/master v6.15-rc3 next-20250424]
[cannot apply to akpm-mm/mm-nonmm-unstable soc/for-next]
[If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch#_base_tree_information]
url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Kees-Cook/randstruct-gcc-plugin-Remove-bogus-void-member/20250427-093946
base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kees/linux.git for-next/hardening
patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250427013836.877214-2-kees%40kernel.org
patch subject: [PATCH 2/3] lib/tests: Add randstruct KUnit test
config: s390-randconfig-002-20250427 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250427/202504271124.gDNKq7ZN-lkp@intel.com/config)
compiler: s390-linux-gcc (GCC) 8.5.0
reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250427/202504271124.gDNKq7ZN-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)
If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
| Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
| Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202504271124.gDNKq7ZN-lkp@intel.com/
All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
>> lib/tests/randstruct_kunit.c:36:36: error: expected ',' before ')' token
_Static_assert(MEMBER_NAME_MAX == 8);
^
,
cc1: warning: unrecognized command line option '-Wno-unterminated-string-initialization'
vim +36 lib/tests/randstruct_kunit.c
19
20 #define DO_MANY_MEMBERS(macro, args...) \
21 macro(a, args) \
22 macro(b, args) \
23 macro(c, args) \
24 macro(d, args) \
25 macro(e, args) \
26 macro(f, args) \
27 macro(g, args) \
28 macro(h, args)
29
30 #define do_enum(x, ignored) MEMBER_NAME_ ## x,
31 enum randstruct_member_names {
32 DO_MANY_MEMBERS(do_enum)
33 MEMBER_NAME_MAX,
34 };
35 /* Make sure the macros are working: want 8 test members. */
> 36 _Static_assert(MEMBER_NAME_MAX == 8);
37
--
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki
Hi Kees,
kernel test robot noticed the following build warnings:
[auto build test WARNING on kees/for-next/hardening]
[also build test WARNING on linus/master v6.15-rc3 next-20250424]
[cannot apply to akpm-mm/mm-nonmm-unstable soc/for-next]
[If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch#_base_tree_information]
url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Kees-Cook/randstruct-gcc-plugin-Remove-bogus-void-member/20250427-093946
base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kees/linux.git for-next/hardening
patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250427013836.877214-2-kees%40kernel.org
patch subject: [PATCH 2/3] lib/tests: Add randstruct KUnit test
config: riscv-randconfig-001-20250427 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250427/202504271150.Be642Srg-lkp@intel.com/config)
compiler: clang version 18.1.8 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project 3b5b5c1ec4a3095ab096dd780e84d7ab81f3d7ff)
reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250427/202504271150.Be642Srg-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)
If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
| Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
| Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202504271150.Be642Srg-lkp@intel.com/
All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
>> lib/tests/randstruct_kunit.c:36:36: warning: '_Static_assert' with no message is a C23 extension [-Wc23-extensions]
36 | _Static_assert(MEMBER_NAME_MAX == 8);
| ^
| , ""
1 warning generated.
vim +/_Static_assert +36 lib/tests/randstruct_kunit.c
19
20 #define DO_MANY_MEMBERS(macro, args...) \
21 macro(a, args) \
22 macro(b, args) \
23 macro(c, args) \
24 macro(d, args) \
25 macro(e, args) \
26 macro(f, args) \
27 macro(g, args) \
28 macro(h, args)
29
30 #define do_enum(x, ignored) MEMBER_NAME_ ## x,
31 enum randstruct_member_names {
32 DO_MANY_MEMBERS(do_enum)
33 MEMBER_NAME_MAX,
34 };
35 /* Make sure the macros are working: want 8 test members. */
> 36 _Static_assert(MEMBER_NAME_MAX == 8);
37
--
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki
On Sun, Apr 27, 2025 at 11:47:19AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote: > Hi Kees, > > kernel test robot noticed the following build warnings: > > [auto build test WARNING on kees/for-next/hardening] > [also build test WARNING on linus/master v6.15-rc3 next-20250424] > [cannot apply to akpm-mm/mm-nonmm-unstable soc/for-next] > [If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note. > And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in > https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch#_base_tree_information] > > url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Kees-Cook/randstruct-gcc-plugin-Remove-bogus-void-member/20250427-093946 > base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kees/linux.git for-next/hardening > patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250427013836.877214-2-kees%40kernel.org > patch subject: [PATCH 2/3] lib/tests: Add randstruct KUnit test > config: riscv-randconfig-001-20250427 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250427/202504271150.Be642Srg-lkp@intel.com/config) > compiler: clang version 18.1.8 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project 3b5b5c1ec4a3095ab096dd780e84d7ab81f3d7ff) > reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250427/202504271150.Be642Srg-lkp@intel.com/reproduce) > > If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of > the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags > | Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> > | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202504271150.Be642Srg-lkp@intel.com/ > > All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>): > > >> lib/tests/randstruct_kunit.c:36:36: warning: '_Static_assert' with no message is a C23 extension [-Wc23-extensions] > 36 | _Static_assert(MEMBER_NAME_MAX == 8); > | ^ > | , "" > 1 warning generated. Thanks! I've fixed this locally. -- Kees Cook
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.