linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] ktest: remove the misleading $buildonly and introduce $laststep.

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87ob1dvtr6.wl%satoru.takeuchi@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 11 Mar 2014 20:50:53 +0900
From:	Satoru Takeuchi <satoru.takeuchi@...il.com>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	Satoru Takeuchi <satoru.takeuchi@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ktest: remove the misleading $buildonly and introduce $laststep.

At Tue, 11 Mar 2014 20:43:40 +0900,
Satoru Takeuchi wrote:
> 
> At Mon, 10 Mar 2014 12:13:00 -0400,
> Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > 
> > On Sun, 09 Mar 2014 23:36:49 +0900
> > Satoru Takeuchi <satoru.takeuchi@...il.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > From: Satoru Takeuchi <satoru.takeuchi@...il.com>
> > > 
> > > Each test of ktest consists of the following steps.
> > > 
> > >   build -> install -> boot -> run user defined tests.
> > > 
> > > $buildonly means not whether the test is build onlyor not. Actually
> > > this variable mean the last step of the test as follows.
> > > 
> > >  0: boot or more
> > >  1: build
> > >  2: install
> > > 
> > > AS you can see, these are random numeric literals. In addition,
> > > there is no explanation about them.
> > > 
> > > To improve readability, introduce $laststep instead of $buildonly.
> > > This variable means the last step of the test as follows.
> > > 
> > >  STEP_BUILD (=0):        build
> > >  STEP_INSTALL (=1):      install
> > >  STEP_BOOT_OR_MORE (=2): boot or more
> > 
> > Nice clean up. But there's some bugs in this patch.
> > 
> >  
> > > @@ -649,26 +651,20 @@ sub set_value {
> > >  
> > >      my $prvalue = process_variables($rvalue);
> > >  
> > > -    if ($buildonly && $lvalue =~ /^TEST_TYPE(\[.*\])?$/ && $prvalue ne "build") {
> > > -	# Note if a test is something other than build, then we
> > > -	# will need other manditory options.
> > > -	if ($prvalue ne "install") {
> > > -	    # for bisect, we need to check BISECT_TYPE
> > > -	    if ($prvalue ne "bisect") {
> > > -		$buildonly = 0;
> > 
> > When prvalue ne "bisect" we set it to boot or more.
> > 
> > > +    if ($laststep <= STEP_INSTALL)  {
> > > +	if ($lvalue =~ /^TEST_TYPE(\[.*\])?$/ && $prvalue ne "build") {
> > > +	    # Note if a test is something other than build, then we
> > > +	    # will need other manditory options.
> > > +	    if ($prvalue eq "install") {
> > > +		# install still limits some manditory options.
> > > +		$laststep = STEP_INSTALL;
> > > +	    } elsif ($prvalue ne "bisect") {
> > > +		# for bisect, we need to check BISECT_TYPE
> > > +		$laststep = STEP_BUILD;
> > 
> > Here you set it back to build.
> > 
> > >  	    }
> > > -	} else {
> > > -	    # install still limits some manditory options.
> > > -	    $buildonly = 2;
> > > -	}
> > > -    }
> > > -
> > > -    if ($buildonly && $lvalue =~ /^BISECT_TYPE(\[.*\])?$/ && $prvalue ne "build") {
> > > -	if ($prvalue ne "install") {
> > > -	    $buildonly = 0;
> > > -	} else {
> > > -	    # install still limits some manditory options.
> > > -	    $buildonly = 2;
> > > +	} elsif ($lvalue =~ /^BISECT_TYPE(\[.*\])?$/ &&
> > > +		   $prvalue ne "build") {
> > > +	    $laststep = ($prvalue eq "install") ? STEP_INSTALL : STEP_BUILD;
> > 
> > Here too.
> > 
> > In fact, with this patch, we never set to boot or more.
> 
> Sorry, my code review and test are insufficient.
> 
> > 
> > Also, you can make it even cleaner, by having the outer if condition be:
> > 
> > 	if ($laststep <= STEP_INSTALL && $prvalue ne "build")
> > 
> > And remove the prvalue check from the inner conditions.
> 
> Thank you fo your comment.
> 
> > 
> > Just send a fix of this patch, I have already pulled in the other two.
> 
> Thanks, I'll do.
> 
> > I just need to test them for a bit before I push them to my kernel.org
> > repo. I don't actually have a test suite for ktest. My testing is that
> > I use ktest on a daily basis, and I just use the latest devel ktest for
> > my daily activities. If something breaks, I usually notice, unless it's
> > affects something I haven't done recently (like a bisect).
> 
> I'll make and send my testsuite later. I considers that
> tools/testing/ktest/example is suitable to place it.

Sorry, actually tools/testing/ktest/tests.
.../examples/ is for examples for configs file as written in examples/README.

Thanks,
Satoru
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/