linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v3 01/19] kunit: test: add KUnit test runner core

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: <20181130032802.GG18410@garbanzo.do-not-panic.com>
Date:   Thu, 29 Nov 2018 19:28:02 -0800
From:   Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To:     Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
Cc:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, keescook@...gle.com, shuah@...nel.org,
        joel@....id.au, mpe@...erman.id.au, joe@...ches.com, brakmo@...com,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, Tim.Bird@...y.com, 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,
        daniel@...ll.ch, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, robh@...nel.org,
        dan.j.williams@...el.com, linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org,
        kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com, frowand.list@...il.com,
        knut.omang@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 01/19] kunit: test: add KUnit test runner core

> +static void kunit_run_case_internal(struct kunit *test,
> +				    struct kunit_module *module,
> +				    struct kunit_case *test_case)
> +{
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	if (module->init) {
> +		ret = module->init(test);
> +		if (ret) {
> +			kunit_err(test, "failed to initialize: %d", ret);
> +			kunit_set_success(test, false);
> +			return;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	test_case->run_case(test);
> +}

<-- snip -->

> +static bool kunit_run_case(struct kunit *test,
> +			   struct kunit_module *module,
> +			   struct kunit_case *test_case)
> +{
> +	kunit_set_success(test, true);
> +
> +	kunit_run_case_internal(test, module, test_case);
> +	kunit_run_case_cleanup(test, module, test_case);
> +
> +	return kunit_get_success(test);
> +}

So we are running the module->init() for each test case... is that
correct? Shouldn't the init run once? Also, typically init calls are
pegged with __init so we free them later. You seem to have skipped the
init annotations. Why?

  Luis