linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH linux-kselftest/test v2] ext4: add kunit test for decoding extended timestamps

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 11 Oct 2019 19:38:10 -0700
From:   Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>
To:     "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc:     Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-kselftest/test v2] ext4: add kunit test for decoding
 extended timestamps

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 6:19 AM Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@....edu> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 03:05:43AM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > That's an interesting point. Should we try to establish a pattern for
> > how tests should be configured? My *very long term* goal is to
> > eventually have tests able to be built and run without any kind of
> > kernel of any kind, but I don't think that having a single config for
> > all tests in a subsystem gets in the way of that, so I don't think I
> > have a strong preference in terms of what I want to do.
> >
> > Nevertheless, I think establishing patterns is good. Do we want to try
> > to follow Ted's preference as a general rule from now on?
>
> As I suggested on another thread (started on kunit-dev, but Brendan
> has cc'ed in linux-kselftest), I think it might really work well if
> "make kunit" runs all of the kunit tests automatically.  As we add
> more kunit tests, finding all of the CONFIG options so they can be
> added to the kunitconfig file is going to be hard, so kunit.py really
> needs an --allconfig which does this automatically.
>
> Along these lines, perhaps we should state that as a general rule the
> CONFIG option for Kunit tests should only depend on KUINIT, and use
> select to enable other dependencies.  i.e., for the ext4 kunit tests,
> it should look like this:
>
> config EXT4_KUNIT_TESTS
>         bool "KUnit test for ext4 inode"
>         select EXT4_FS
>         depends on KUNIT
> ...
Done

> In the current patch, we use "depends on EXT4_FS", which meant that
> when I first added "CONFIG_EXT4_KUNIT_TESTS=y" to the kunitconfig
> file, I got the following confusing error message:
>
> % ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py  run
> Regenerating .config ...
> ERROR:root:Provided Kconfig is not contained in validated .config!
>
> Using "select EXT4_FS" makes it much easier to enable the ext4 kunit
> tests in kunitconfig.  At the moment requiring that we two lines to
> kunitconfig to enable ext4 isn't _that_ bad:
>
> CONFIG_EXT4_FS=y
> CONFIG_EXT4_KUNIT_TESTS=y
>
> but over time, if many subsystems start adding unit tests, the
> overhead of managing the kunitconfig file is going to get unwieldy.
> Hence my suggestion that we just make all Kunit CONFIG options depend
> only on CONFIG_KUNIT.
>
> > I agree with Iurii. I don't think that this example alone warrants
> > adding support for being able to read test data in from a separate
> > file (I would also like some clarification here on what is meant by
> > reading in from a separate file). I can imagine some scenarios where
> > that might make sense, but I think it would be better to get more
> > examples before trying to support that use case.
>
> So what I was thinking might happen is that for some of the largest
> unit tests before I would transition to deciding that xfstests was the
> better way to go, I *might* have a small, 100k ext4 file system which
> would checked into the kernel sources as fs/ext4/kunit_test.img, and
> there would be a makefile rule that would turn that into
> fs/ext4/kunit_test_img.c file that might look something like:
>
> const ext4_kunit_test_img[] = {
>       0xde, ...
>
> But I'm not sure I actually want to go down that path.  It would
> certainly better from a test design perspective to create test mocks
> at a higher layer, such as ext4_iget() and ext4_read_block_bitmap().
>
> The problem is that quite a bit of code in ext4 would have to be
> *extensively* refactored in order to allow for easy test mocking,
> since we have calls to sb_bread, ext4_bread(), submit_bh(), etc.,
> sprinkled alongside the code logic that we would want to test.
>
> So using a small test image and making the cut line be at the buffer
> cache layer is going to be much, *much* simpler at least in the short
> term.  So the big question is how much of an investment (or technical
> debt paydown) do I want to do right away, versus taking a shortcut to
> get better unit test coverage more quickly, and then do further tech
> debt reduction later?
>
>                                        - Ted