linux-kernel - RE: [RFC v1 06/31] arch: um: enabled running kunit from User Mode Linux

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, 17 Oct 2018 21:18:25 +0000
From:   <Tim.Bird@...y.com>
To:     <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
CC:     <kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com>, <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        <keescook@...gle.com>, <mcgrof@...nel.org>, <shuah@...nel.org>,
        <joel@....id.au>, <mpe@...erman.id.au>, <joe@...ches.com>,
        <brakmo@...com>, <rostedt@...dmis.org>, <khilman@...libre.com>,
        <julia.lawall@...6.fr>, <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        <kunit-dev@...glegroups.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <jdike@...toit.com>, <richard@....at>,
        <linux-um@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: RE: [RFC v1 06/31] arch: um: enabled running kunit from User Mode
 Linux



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brendan Higgins 
> 
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 10:52 AM <Tim.Bird@...y.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > It might be of interest to the automated testing mailing list too ? (Tim?)
> >
> >  I think this is interesting to groups doing automated testing of the kernel
> > (including myself) as another set of tests to run.  Right now I don't see it
> > as having any special attributes related to automation.  But I could be
> wrong.
> 
> Pardon my ignorance, but by automated testing you mean a CI server
> with presubmits, nightlys, and things of the sort?
Yes.

> 
> If that's the case, KUnit could be helpful because of the low resource
> cost in running them and the speed at which they run.
True.

> There are some
> other features we would like to add which would help with that goal as
> well like test isolation. We actually have a presubmit server
> internally for running KUnit tests that can usually respond to patches
> with test results within a couple minutes. Would something like that
> be interesting?
I think the code and architecture of the software that handles presubmit,
mail-list scanning, notifications, etc. would be of interest.  But KUnit features
themselves (macro definitions, mocking vs. faking, etc.) would not. 
I only say that in the context of CC-ing the automated testing list on the patch set.
Of course the KUnit features are interesting by themselves for testers doing
unit testing.
 -- Tim