| 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: <91906d36-1f5b-b388-42a7-881b0915f0ea@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2020 10:53:51 +0530
From: Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@...il.com>
To: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.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 24/10/20 12:18 am, Marco Elver wrote:
> 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.
>
Okay, I will add a more detailed commit message for the next version.
>> 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.
>
I will include this.
>> /* 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);
>
Yes, a macro can be used to generate the generator function. I will work with this
for the next version.
>> #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
>
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists