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: Wed, 6 Dec 2023 15:43:52 +0800
From: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
To: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
Cc: Rae Moar <rmoar@...gle.com>, Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>, 
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, 
	Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, 
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, 
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>, 
	Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, 
	kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-sound@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] kunit: Add APIs for managing devices

On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 at 16:30, Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/5/23 09:31, davidgow@...gle.com wrote:
> > Tests for drivers often require a struct device to pass to other
> > functions. While it's possible to create these with
> > root_device_register(), or to use something like a platform device, this
> > is both a misuse of those APIs, and can be difficult to clean up after,
> > for example, a failed assertion.
> >
> > Add some KUnit-specific functions for registering and unregistering a
> > struct device:
> > - kunit_device_register()
> > - kunit_device_register_with_driver()
> > - kunit_device_unregister()
>
> Thanks a lot David! I have been missing these!
>
> I love the explanation you added under Documentation. Very helpful I'd
> say. I only have very minor comments which you can ignore if they don't
> make sense to you or the kunit-subsystem.
>
> With or without the suggested changes:
>
> Reviewed-by: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
>
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/include/kunit/device.h
> > @@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
> > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> > +/*
> > + * KUnit basic device implementation
> > + *
> > + * Helpers for creating and managing fake devices for KUnit tests.
> > + *
> > + * Copyright (C) 2023, Google LLC.
> > + * Author: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
> > + */
> > +
> > +#ifndef _KUNIT_DEVICE_H
> > +#define _KUNIT_DEVICE_H
> > +
> > +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KUNIT)
> > +
> > +#include <kunit/test.h>
> > +
> > +struct kunit_device;
> > +struct device;
> > +struct device_driver;
> > +
> > +// For internal use only -- registers the kunit_bus.
> > +int kunit_bus_init(void);
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * kunit_driver_create() - Create a struct device_driver attached to the kunit_bus
> > + * @test: The test context object.
> > + * @name: The name to give the created driver.
> > + *
> > + * Creates a struct device_driver attached to the kunit_bus, with the name @name.
> > + * This driver will automatically be cleaned up on test exit.
> > + */
> > +struct device_driver *kunit_driver_create(struct kunit *test, const char *name);
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * kunit_device_register() - Create a struct device for use in KUnit tests
> > + * @test: The test context object.
> > + * @name: The name to give the created device.
> > + *
> > + * Creates a struct kunit_device (which is a struct device) with the given name,
> > + * and a corresponding driver. The device and driver will be cleaned up on test
> > + * exit, or when kunit_device_unregister is called. See also
> > + * kunit_device_register_with_driver, if you wish to provide your own
> > + * struct device_driver.
> > + */
> > +struct device *kunit_device_register(struct kunit *test, const char *name);
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * kunit_device_register_with_driver() - Create a struct device for use in KUnit tests
> > + * @test: The test context object.
> > + * @name: The name to give the created device.
> > + * @drv: The struct device_driver to associate with the device.
> > + *
> > + * Creates a struct kunit_device (which is a struct device) with the given
> > + * name, and driver. The device will be cleaned up on test exit, or when
> > + * kunit_device_unregister is called. See also kunit_device_register, if you
> > + * wish KUnit to create and manage a driver for you
> > + */
> > +struct device *kunit_device_register_with_driver(struct kunit *test,
> > +                                              const char *name,
> > +                                              struct device_driver *drv);
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * kunit_device_unregister() - Unregister a KUnit-managed device
> > + * @test: The test context object which created the device
> > + * @dev: The device.
> > + *
> > + * Unregisters and destroys a struct device which was created with
> > + * kunit_device_register or kunit_device_register_with_driver. If KUnit created
> > + * a driver, cleans it up as well.
> > + */
> > +void kunit_device_unregister(struct kunit *test, struct device *dev);
>
> I wish the return values for error case(s) were also mentioned. But
> please, see my next comment as well.
>

I'll add these for v2.

> > +
> > +#endif
> > +
> > +#endif
>
> ...
>
> > diff --git a/lib/kunit/device.c b/lib/kunit/device.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..93ace1a2297d
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/lib/kunit/device.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,176 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > +/*
> > + * KUnit basic device implementation
> > + *
> > + * Implementation of struct kunit_device helpers.
> > + *
> > + * Copyright (C) 2023, Google LLC.
> > + * Author: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
> > + */
> > +
>
> ...
>
> > +
> > +static void kunit_device_release(struct device *d)
> > +{
> > +     kfree(to_kunit_device(d));
> > +}
>
> I see you added the function documentation to the header. I assume this
> is the kunit style(?) I may be heretical, but I'd love to see at least a
> very short documentation for (all) exported functions here. I think the
> arguments are mostly self-explatonary, but at least for me the return
> values aren't that obvious. Whether they are kerneldoc or not is not
> that important to me.
>
> I think you did a great job adding docs under Documentation/ (and the
> header) - but at least I tend to just jump to function implementation
> when I need to figure out how it behaves. Having doc (or pointer to doc)
> also here helps. I don't think it's that widely spread practice to add
> docs to the headers(?)
>

I'll add at least something to the implementations, too.

We've mostly kept the full documentation in the headers so they can be
found by people who only have headers installed, but also because the
headers tend to be smaller, and sphinx runs slowly enough as it is
without needing a bigger file to parse.

> > +struct device_driver *kunit_driver_create(struct kunit *test, const char *name)
> > +{
> > +     struct device_driver *driver;
> > +     int err = -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > +     driver = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*driver), GFP_KERNEL);
> > +
> > +     if (!driver)
> > +             return ERR_PTR(err);
> > +
> > +     driver->name = name;
> > +     driver->bus = &kunit_bus_type;
> > +     driver->owner = THIS_MODULE;
> > +
> > +     err = driver_register(driver);
> > +     if (err) {
> > +             kunit_kfree(test, driver);
> > +             return ERR_PTR(err);
> > +     }
> > +
> > +     kunit_add_action(test, driver_unregister_wrapper, driver);
> > +     return driver;
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kunit_driver_create);
> > +
> > +struct kunit_device *__kunit_device_register_internal(struct kunit *test,
> > +                                                   const char *name,
> > +                                                   struct device_driver *drv)
>
> Very much nitpicking only - but do you think either the "__"-prefix or
> the "_internal"-suffix would be enough and not both? (Just to make
> function a tad shorter, not that it matters much though).
>

Fair enough, I've tentatively got rid of the underscores for v2.

> > +{
> > +     struct kunit_device *kunit_dev;
> > +     int err = -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > +     kunit_dev = kzalloc(sizeof(struct kunit_device), GFP_KERNEL);
> > +     if (!kunit_dev)
> > +             return ERR_PTR(err);
> > +
> > +     kunit_dev->owner = test;
> > +
> > +     err = dev_set_name(&kunit_dev->dev, "%s.%s", test->name, name);
> > +     if (err) {
> > +             kfree(kunit_dev);
> > +             return ERR_PTR(err);
> > +     }
> > +
> > +     /* Set the expected driver pointer, so we match. */
> > +     kunit_dev->driver = drv;
> > +
> > +     kunit_dev->dev.release = kunit_device_release;
> > +     kunit_dev->dev.bus = &kunit_bus_type;
> > +     kunit_dev->dev.parent = &kunit_bus;
> > +
> > +     err = device_register(&kunit_dev->dev);
> > +     if (err) {
> > +             put_device(&kunit_dev->dev);
> > +             return ERR_PTR(err);
> > +     }
> > +
> > +     kunit_add_action(test, device_unregister_wrapper, &kunit_dev->dev);
> > +
> > +     return kunit_dev;
> > +}
>

Thanks,
-- David

Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (4003 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists