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: <CAFd5g45F0RViYDQyXRwyxVPAU=CO_Goqy3yHz=BbcMeAT7o6-g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 30 Nov 2018 18:08:36 -0800
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
To:     mcgrof@...nel.org
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>, shuah@...nel.org,
        Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>, mpe@...erman.id.au,
        joe@...ches.com, brakmo@...com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        Tim.Bird@...y.com, khilman@...libre.com,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        jdike@...toit.com, richard@....at, linux-um@...ts.infradead.org,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        dan.j.williams@...el.com, linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org,
        kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        Knut Omang <knut.omang@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 01/19] kunit: test: add KUnit test runner core

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 7:28 PM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > +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

Yep, it's correct. `module->init()` should run once before every test
case, reason being that the kunit_module serves as a test fixture in
which each test cases should be run completely independently of every
other. init and exit is supposed to allow code common to all test
cases to run since it is so common to have dependencies needed for a
test to be common to every test case.

Maybe it is confusing that I call it kunit_module? Maybe I should call
it kunit_fixture or something?

> pegged with __init so we free them later. You seem to have skipped the
> init annotations. Why?

Like I said above, these aren't normal init functions. A
kunit_module->init() function should run once before each test case
and thus should reside in the same linker section as any other KUnit
test code.

Cheers