linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v3 11/19] kunit: add Python libraries for handing KUnit config and kernel

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: <CAFd5g47x-UNja72k-CWPmWz9+LTn8pF8Wj5Poq+2FJ93E=vymA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 3 Dec 2018 15:48:15 -0800
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
To:     kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>, mcgrof@...nel.org,
        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,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        Knut Omang <knut.omang@...cle.com>,
        Felix Guo <felixguoxiuping@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 11/19] kunit: add Python libraries for handing KUnit
 config and kernel

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 5:54 AM Kieran Bingham
<kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Brendan,
>
> Thanks again for this series!
>
> On 28/11/2018 19:36, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > The ultimate goal is to create minimal isolated test binaries; in the
> > meantime we are using UML to provide the infrastructure to run tests, so
> > define an abstract way to configure and run tests that allow us to
> > change the context in which tests are built without affecting the user.
> > This also makes pretty and dynamic error reporting, and a lot of other
> > nice features easier.
>
>
> I wonder if we could somehow generate a shared library object
> 'libkernel' or 'libumlinux' from a UM configured set of headers and
> objects so that we could create binary targets directly ?

That's an interesting idea. I think it would be difficult to figure
out exactly where to draw the line of what goes in there and what
needs to be built specific to a test a priori. Of course, that leads
into the biggest problem in general, needed to know what I need to
build to test the thing that I want to test.

Nevertheless, I could definitely imagine that being useful in a lot of cases.

> > diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000000000..bba7ea7ca1869
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py
...
> > +     def make(self, jobs):
> > +             try:
> > +                     subprocess.check_output([
> > +                                     'make',
> > +                                     'ARCH=um',
> > +                                     '--jobs=' + str(jobs)])
>
> Perhaps as a future extension:
>
> It would be nice if we could set an O= here to keep the source tree
> pristine.
>
> In fact I might even suggest that this should always be set so that the
> unittesting could live along side an existing kernel build? :
>
>  O ?= $KBUILD_SRC/
>  O := $(O)/kunittest/$(ARCH)/build

I agree with that. It would be pretty annoying to run a unit test and
have it mess up your .config and force you to rebuild everything else.
(I have actually done this to myself a couple of times...)

Cheers