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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 23:43:43 -0400 From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu> To: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> Cc: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>, Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>, Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>, Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts@...sares.net>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext: EXT4_KUNIT_TESTS should depend on EXT4_FS instead of selecting it On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 04:07:15PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > > I'm don't particularly care how this gets achieved, but please think > > about how to make it easy for a kernel developer to run a specific set > > of subsystem unit tests. (In fact, being able to do something like > > "kunit.py run fs/ext4 fs/jbd2" or maybe "kunit.py run fs/..." would be > > *great*. No need to fuss with hand editing the .kunitconfig file at > > all would be **wonderful**. > > I understand the wish for ease of use, but this is still the tail > wagging the dog. > > The primary documentation for 'select' is > Documentation/kbuild/kconfig-language.rst, which says: > > Note: > select should be used with care. select will force > a symbol to a value without visiting the dependencies. > By abusing select you are able to select a symbol FOO even > if FOO depends on BAR that is not set. > In general use select only for non-visible symbols > (no prompts anywhere) and for symbols with no dependencies. > That will limit the usefulness but on the other hand avoid > the illegal configurations all over. > Well, the KUNIT configs are kinda of a special case, since normally they don't have a lot of huge number of dependencies, since unit tests in general are not integration tests. So ideally, dependencies will mostly be replaced with mocking functions. And if there are *real* dependencies that the Kunit Unit tests need, they can be explicitly pulled in with selects. That being said, as I said, I'm not picky about *how* this gets achieved. But ease of use is a key part of making people more likely to run the unit tests. So another way of solving the problem might be to put some kind of automated dependency solver into kunit.py, or some way of manually adding the necessary dependencies in some kind of Kunitconfig file that are in directories where their are Unit tests, or maybe some kind of extenstion to the Kconfig file. My main requirement is that the only thing that should be necessary for enabling the ext4 Kunit tests should be adding a single line to the .kunitconfig file. It's not fair to make the human developer manually have to figure out the dependency chains. As far as I'm concerned, ease of use is important enough to justfy special casing and/or bending the rules as far as "select" is concered for Kunit-related CONFIG items. But if someone else want to suggest a better approach, I'm all ears. Cheers, - Ted
Powered by blists - more mailing lists