[PATCH 0/6] Test and linter fixups

newer
[PATCH v2 1/6] test: Add linting...

older
[PATCH 2/6] test: Add linting of...

David Gibson

1 Oct 2025 1 Oct '25

11:51 a.m.

Before starting to convert testcases to use tunbridge, I wanted to add linting for the Python test scripts. While doing that I discovered a new crop of cppcheck and clang-tidy false positives, and a Makefile bug. Here's a batch of fixes. I didn't manage to get through the whole testsuite with this. I keep getting hangs on rampstream_out, which I *think* are unrelated. David Gibson (6): test: Convince make not to accidentally delete exetool test: Add linting of Python test scripts clang-tidy: Suppress redundant expression warning cppcheck: Suppress the suppression of a suppression cppcheck: Suppress a buggy cppcheck warning cppcheck: Suppress variable scope warnings in dhcpv6() dhcpv6.c | 8 ++++++++ linux_dep.h | 2 +- tcp.c | 5 +++++ test/Makefile | 16 +++++++++++++++- test/build/build.py | 5 +++-- test/build/static_checkers.sh | 6 +++++- vhost_user.c | 1 + 7 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) -- 2.51.0

Show replies by date

David Gibson

1 Oct 1 Oct

11:51 a.m.

New subject: [PATCH 1/6] test: Convince make not to accidentally delete exetool

Our exeter tests make use of exetool, a tool that's part of the exeter tree. Both Yumei and I have seen cases where exetool is missing, despite it being from an external tree we shouldn't be touching. I haven't pinned down the exact circumstances in which this happens, but I think this is occurring because the way the Makefile refers to it can make it look like an intermediate target that make may delete when interrupted. Mark it as .PRECIOUS to prevent that. Signed-off-by: David Gibson --- test/Makefile | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) diff --git a/test/Makefile b/test/Makefile index 49388276..69987d0b 100644 --- a/test/Makefile +++ b/test/Makefile @@ -81,6 +81,8 @@ pull-%: % exeter: git clone https://gitlab.com/dgibson/exeter.git +# Don't delete this, make, even though it looks like an intermediate target +.PRECIOUS: exeter/exetool/exetool exeter/exetool/exetool: pull-exeter mbuto: -- 2.51.0

David Gibson

11:52 a.m.

New subject: [PATCH 5/6] cppcheck: Suppress a buggy cppcheck warning

Another cppcheck package in Fedora, another bogus false positive. This one seems to not realise that a variable has been initialised by getsockopt() under a complicated set of circumstances. Signed-off-by: David Gibson --- tcp.c | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) diff --git a/tcp.c b/tcp.c index 48b1ef29..7da41797 100644 --- a/tcp.c +++ b/tcp.c @@ -1030,6 +1030,11 @@ int tcp_update_seqack_wnd(const struct ctx *c, struct tcp_tap_conn *conn, return 0; } + /* This trips a cppcheck bug in some versions, including + * cppcheck 2.18.3. + * https://sourceforge.net/p/cppcheck/discussion/general/thread/fecde59085/ + */ + /* cppcheck-suppress [uninitvar,unmatchedSuppression] */ conn->seq_ack_to_tap = tinfo->tcpi_bytes_acked + conn->seq_init_from_tap; -- 2.51.0

David Gibson

11:52 a.m.

New subject: [PATCH 6/6] cppcheck: Suppress variable scope warnings in dhcpv6()

At least some cppcheck versions (2.18.3 for me) complain that the _storage variables in dhcpv6() could be reduced in scope. That's not actually the case, because although we don't reference the variables, we may touch their memory via pointers after the blocks in question. There's no reasonable way for cppcheck to determine that, though, so suppress its warnings. Signed-off-by: David Gibson --- dhcpv6.c | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) diff --git a/dhcpv6.c b/dhcpv6.c index c1a27aba..e4df0db5 100644 --- a/dhcpv6.c +++ b/dhcpv6.c @@ -550,10 +550,18 @@ int dhcpv6(struct ctx *c, struct iov_tail *data, { const struct opt_server_id *server_id = NULL; const struct opt_hdr *client_id = NULL; + /* The _storage variables can't be local to the blocks they're used in, + * because IOV_*_HEADER() may return pointers to them which are + * dereferenced afterwards. Since we don't have Rust-like lifetime + * tracking, cppcheck can't reasonably determine that, so we must + * suppress its warnings. */ + /* cppcheck-suppress [variableScope,unmatchedSuppression] */ struct opt_server_id server_id_storage; struct iov_tail opt, client_id_base; const struct opt_ia_na *ia = NULL; + /* cppcheck-suppress [variableScope,unmatchedSuppression] */ struct opt_hdr client_id_storage; + /* cppcheck-suppress [variableScope,unmatchedSuppression] */ struct opt_ia_na ia_storage; const struct in6_addr *src; struct msg_hdr mh_storage; -- 2.51.0

David Gibson

2 Oct 2 Oct

5:26 a.m.

New subject: [PATCH 1/6] test: Convince make not to accidentally delete exetool

On Wed, Oct 01, 2025 at 07:51:57PM +1000, David Gibson wrote:

...

Our exeter tests make use of exetool, a tool that's part of the exeter tree. Both Yumei and I have seen cases where exetool is missing, despite it being from an external tree we shouldn't be touching.

I haven't pinned down the exact circumstances in which this happens, but I think this is occurring because the way the Makefile refers to it can make it look like an intermediate target that make may delete when interrupted. Mark it as .PRECIOUS to prevent that.

Signed-off-by: David Gibson

This doesn't seem to be working, I'll try a different approach.

...

--- test/Makefile | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/test/Makefile b/test/Makefile index 49388276..69987d0b 100644 --- a/test/Makefile +++ b/test/Makefile @@ -81,6 +81,8 @@ pull-%: % exeter: git clone https://gitlab.com/dgibson/exeter.git

+# Don't delete this, make, even though it looks like an intermediate target +.PRECIOUS: exeter/exetool/exetool exeter/exetool/exetool: pull-exeter

mbuto: -- 2.51.0

-- David Gibson (he or they) | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you, not the other way | around. http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

Age (days ago)

Last active (days ago)

List overview

Download

4 comments

1 participants

participants (1)

David Gibson