linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH v2] Documentation: KUnit: Update filename best practices

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]

Message-ID: <d91ed522-9df6-4a83-9cc4-9f71f160f3e4@nvidia.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2024 16:49:35 -0700
From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>
CC: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>, Brendan Higgins
	<brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>, Rae Moar <rmoar@...gle.com>, Jonathan Corbet
	<corbet@....net>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Documentation: KUnit: Update filename best practices

On 7/22/24 2:55 AM, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 20, 2024 at 09:54AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
...
> I'm more confused now. This is just moving tests further away from what
> they are testing for no good reason. If there's a directory "foo", then
> moving things to "tests/foo" is unclear. It's unclear if "tests" is
> inside parent of "foo" or actually a subdir of "foo". Per the paragraph
> above, I inferred it's "foo/tests/foo/...", which is horrible. If it's
> "../tests/foo/..." it's also bad because it's just moving tests further
> away from what they are testing.
> 
> And keeping tests close to the source files under test is generally
> considered good practice, as it avoids the friction required to discover
> where tests live. Moving tests to "../tests" or "../../*/tests" in the
> majority of cases is counterproductive.
> 
> It is more important for people to quickly discover tests nearby and
> actually run them, vs. having them stashed away somewhere so they don't
> bother us.
> 
> While we can apply common sense, all too often someone follows these
> rules blindly and we end up with a mess.
> 

Here, you've actually made a good argument for "blindly" following the
new naming/location conventions: it's easier to find things if a
standard naming and location convention is in place. Especially if
we document it. Now if only someone would post a patch with such
documentation... :)

I would add that the "_kunit" part of the name is especially helpful,
because (as I mentioned earlier) these tests really are different enough
that it's worth calling out. You can run them simply by loading the
kernel module.

So if I want to quickly run kunit tests, searching for "*_kunit.c" does
help with that.


thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA