linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 01/18] 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]

Date:   Mon, 15 Jul 2019 14:25:45 -0700
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
To:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
Cc:     Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
        Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, shuah <shuah@...nel.org>,
        "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kbuild <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        linux-um@...ts.infradead.org,
        Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@...rosoft.com>,
        "Bird, Timothy" <Tim.Bird@...y.com>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>,
        Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>,
        Knut Omang <knut.omang@...cle.com>,
        Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, wfg@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 01/18] kunit: test: add KUnit test runner core

On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 1:10 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-07-12 01:17:27)
> > Add core facilities for defining unit tests; this provides a common way
> > to define test cases, functions that execute code which is under test
> > and determine whether the code under test behaves as expected; this also
> > provides a way to group together related test cases in test suites (here
> > we call them test_modules).
> >
> > Just define test cases and how to execute them for now; setting
> > expectations on code will be defined later.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> > Reviewed-by: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
>
> Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
>
> Minor nits below.
>
> > diff --git a/kunit/test.c b/kunit/test.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000000000..571e4c65deb5c
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/kunit/test.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,189 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > +/*
> > + * Base unit test (KUnit) API.
> > + *
> > + * Copyright (C) 2019, Google LLC.
> > + * Author: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
> > + */
> > +
> > +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> > +#include <kunit/test.h>
> > +
> > +static void kunit_set_failure(struct kunit *test)
> > +{
> > +       WRITE_ONCE(test->success, false);
> > +}
> > +
> [...]
> > +
> > +void kunit_init_test(struct kunit *test, const char *name)
> > +{
> > +       test->name = name;
> > +       test->success = true;
> > +}
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Performs all logic to run a test case.
> > + */
> > +static void kunit_run_case(struct kunit_suite *suite,
> > +                          struct kunit_case *test_case)
> > +{
> > +       struct kunit test;
> > +       int ret = 0;
> > +
> > +       kunit_init_test(&test, test_case->name);
> > +
> > +       if (suite->init) {
> > +               ret = suite->init(&test);
>
> Can you push the ret definition into this if scope? That way we can
> avoid default initialize to 0 for it.

Sure! I would actually prefer that from a cosmetic standpoint. I just
thought that mixing declarations and code was against the style guide.

> > +               if (ret) {
> > +                       kunit_err(&test, "failed to initialize: %d\n", ret);
> > +                       kunit_set_failure(&test);
>
> Do we need to 'test_case->success = test.success' here too? Or is the
> test failure extracted somewhere else?

Er, yes. That's kind of embarrassing. Good catch.

> > +                       return;
> > +               }
> > +       }
> > +
> > +       test_case->run_case(&test);
> > +
> > +       if (suite->exit)
> > +               suite->exit(&test);
> > +
> > +       test_case->success = test.success;

Thanks!