linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v3 17/19] of: unittest: migrate tests to run on KUnit

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: <CAL_JsqKvsCNk5oz-f9-G2TsKbfvO=9HO+-+QfOMz_xEAN8TJJg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 6 Dec 2018 18:41:46 -0600
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
Cc:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
        "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>, shuah@...nel.org,
        Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, brakmo@...com,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        "Bird, Timothy" <Tim.Bird@...y.com>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        linux-um@...ts.infradead.org, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>, knut.omang@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 17/19] of: unittest: migrate tests to run on KUnit

On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:43 PM Brendan Higgins
<brendanhiggins@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 5:41 AM Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 6:14 PM Brendan Higgins
> > <brendanhiggins@...gle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 4:40 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 11/28/18 12:56 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > > >> diff --git a/drivers/of/Kconfig b/drivers/of/Kconfig
> > > > >> index ad3fcad4d75b8..f309399deac20 100644
> > > > >> --- a/drivers/of/Kconfig
> > > > >> +++ b/drivers/of/Kconfig
> > > > >> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ if OF
> > > > >>  config OF_UNITTEST
> > > > >>         bool "Device Tree runtime unit tests"
> > > > >>         depends on !SPARC
> > > > >> +       depends on KUNIT
> > > > > Unless KUNIT has depends, better to be a select here.
> > > >
> > > > That's just style or taste.  I would prefer to use depends
> > > > instead of select, but that's also just my preference.
> > >
> > > I prefer depends too, but Rob is the maintainer here.
> >
> > Well, we should be consistent, not the follow the whims of each maintainer.
>
> Sorry, I don't think that came out the way I meant it. I don't really
> think we are consistent on this point across the kernel, and I don't
> feel very strongly about the point, so I was just looking to follow
> the path of least resistance. (I also just assumed Rob would keep us
> consistent within drivers/of/.)

I meant across unittests, we should be consistent. All unittests do
either "depends on KUNIT" or "select KUNIT". The question I would ask
is does KUNIT need to be user visible or is useful to enable without
any unittests enabled? With depends, a user has 2 options to go enable
vs. 1 with select.

But if you want a global kill switch to turn off all unittests, then
depends works better.

> I figure if we are running unit tests from the test runner script or
> from an automated system, you won't be hunting for dependencies for a
> single test every time you want to run a test, so select doesn't make
> it easier to configure in most imagined use cases.
>
> KUNIT hypothetically should not depend on anything, so select should
> be safe to use.
>
> On the other hand, if we end up being wrong on this point and KUnit
> gains widespread adoption, I would prefer not to be in a position
> where I have to change a bunch of configs all over the kernel because
> this example got copied and pasted.

You'll be so happy that 100s of tests have been created using kunit,
it won't be a big deal. :)

In any case, I wouldn't spend more time on this.

Rob