| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20201023184803.GA3922681@elver.google.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2020 20:48:03 +0200
From: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
To: Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@...il.com>
Cc: brendanhiggins@...gle.com, skhan@...uxfoundation.org,
yzaikin@...gle.com, tytso@....edu, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] kunit: Support for Parameterized Testing
On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 08:35PM +0530, Arpitha Raghunandan wrote:
> Implementation of support for parameterized testing in KUnit.
Already looks much cleaner, thanks for using this approach!
I think the commit message needs a brief summary of the approach.
> Signed-off-by: Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@...il.com>
> ---
> Changes v1->v2:
> - Use of a generator method to access test case parameters
>
> include/kunit/test.h | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> lib/kunit/test.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
> 2 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h
> index a423fffefea0..c417ac140326 100644
> --- a/include/kunit/test.h
> +++ b/include/kunit/test.h
> @@ -141,6 +141,7 @@ struct kunit;
> struct kunit_case {
> void (*run_case)(struct kunit *test);
> const char *name;
> + void* (*generate_params)(struct kunit *test, void *prev);
Would adding documentation above this field be the right place, or
somewhere else? In any case, some explanation of the protocol would be
good.
> /* private: internal use only. */
> bool success;
> @@ -162,6 +163,9 @@ static inline char *kunit_status_to_string(bool status)
> * &struct kunit_case for an example on how to use it.
> */
> #define KUNIT_CASE(test_name) { .run_case = test_name, .name = #test_name }
> +#define KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(test_name, gen_params) \
> + { .run_case = test_name, .name = #test_name, \
> + .generate_params = gen_params }
>
> /**
> * struct kunit_suite - describes a related collection of &struct kunit_case
> @@ -208,6 +212,15 @@ struct kunit {
> const char *name; /* Read only after initialization! */
> char *log; /* Points at case log after initialization */
> struct kunit_try_catch try_catch;
> + /* param_values points to test case parameters in parameterized tests */
> + void *param_values;
> + /*
> + * current_param stores the index of the parameter in
> + * the array of parameters in parameterized tests.
> + * current_param + 1 is printed to indicate the parameter
> + * that causes the test to fail in case of test failure.
> + */
> + int current_param;
> /*
> * success starts as true, and may only be set to false during a
> * test case; thus, it is safe to update this across multiple
> @@ -1742,4 +1755,36 @@ do { \
> fmt, \
> ##__VA_ARGS__)
>
> +/**
> + * kunit_param_generator_helper() - Helper method for test parameter generators
> + * required in parameterized tests.
> + * @test: The test context object.
> + * @prev_param: a pointer to the previous test parameter, NULL for first parameter.
> + * @param_array: a user-supplied pointer to an array of test parameters.
> + * @array_size: number of test parameters in the array.
> + * @type_size: size of one test parameter.
> + */
> +static inline void *kunit_param_generator_helper(struct kunit *test,
I don't think this needs to be inline, but see my other suggestion
below, which might make this function obsolete.
> + void *prev_param,
> + void *param_array,
> + size_t array_size,
> + size_t type_size)
> +{
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, (prev_param - param_array) % type_size, 0);
> +
> + if (!prev_param)
> + return param_array;
> +
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_GE(test, prev_param, param_array);
> +
> + if (prev_param + type_size < param_array + (array_size * type_size))
> + return prev_param + type_size;
> + else
> + return NULL;
> +}
> +
> +#define KUNIT_PARAM_GENERATOR_HELPER(test, prev_param, param_array, param_type) \
> + kunit_param_generator_helper(test, prev_param, param_array, \
> + ARRAY_SIZE(param_array), sizeof(param_type))
You do not need param_type, you can use the same trick that ARRAY_SIZE
uses:
#define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr))
So you could use sizeof((param_aray)[0]) instead of sizeof(param_type).
ARRAY_SIZE already checks for you that it's a real array via
__must_be_array().
The other question is, will kunit_param_generator_helper() find much use
without the KUNIT_PARAM_GENERATOR_HELPER() macro? If I have some
complicated generator protocol to generate params, then I'd just
directly write the generator function. If your intent is to simplify the
common-case array based generators, why not just have a macro generate
the generator function?
More specifically, have this macro here:
+#define KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM(name, array) \
+ static void *name##_gen_params(struct kunit *test, void *prev) \
+ { \
+ typeof((array)[0]) *__next = prev ? ((typeof(__next)) prev) + 1 : (array); \
+ return __next - (array) < ARRAY_SIZE((array)) ? __next : NULL; \
+ }
[ It is entirely untested, but if it works verbatim you'll probably need my
Co-developed-by: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
just in case... ]
Then, it can be used as follows:
static int num_cpus[] = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM(num_cpus, num_cpus);
Then somewhere else:
KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(some_test, num_cpus_gen_params);
> #endif /* _KUNIT_TEST_H */
> diff --git a/lib/kunit/test.c b/lib/kunit/test.c
> index 750704abe89a..0e6ffe6384a7 100644
> --- a/lib/kunit/test.c
> +++ b/lib/kunit/test.c
> @@ -127,6 +127,11 @@ unsigned int kunit_test_case_num(struct kunit_suite *suite,
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kunit_test_case_num);
>
> +static void kunit_print_failed_param(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> + kunit_err(test, "\n\tTest failed at parameter: %d\n", test->current_param + 1);
> +}
> +
> static void kunit_print_string_stream(struct kunit *test,
> struct string_stream *stream)
> {
> @@ -168,6 +173,8 @@ static void kunit_fail(struct kunit *test, struct kunit_assert *assert)
> assert->format(assert, stream);
>
> kunit_print_string_stream(test, stream);
> + if (test->param_values)
> + kunit_print_failed_param(test);
>
> WARN_ON(string_stream_destroy(stream));
> }
> @@ -239,7 +246,18 @@ static void kunit_run_case_internal(struct kunit *test,
> }
> }
>
> - test_case->run_case(test);
> + if (!test_case->generate_params) {
> + test_case->run_case(test);
> + } else {
> + test->param_values = test_case->generate_params(test, NULL);
> + test->current_param = 0;
> +
> + while (test->param_values) {
> + test_case->run_case(test);
> + test->param_values = test_case->generate_params(test, test->param_values);
> + test->current_param++;
> + }
> + }
> }
>
> static void kunit_case_internal_cleanup(struct kunit *test)
Otherwise looks fine.
Thanks,
-- Marco
Powered by blists - more mailing lists