linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v12 11/18] kunit: test: add the concept of assertions

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, 12 Aug 2019 21:55:09 -0700
From:   Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
To:     Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
        frowand.list@...il.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        jpoimboe@...hat.com, keescook@...gle.com,
        kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com, mcgrof@...nel.org,
        peterz@...radead.org, robh@...nel.org, shuah@...nel.org,
        tytso@....edu, yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com
Cc:     devicetree@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org, linux-um@...ts.infradead.org,
        Alexander.Levin@...rosoft.com, Tim.Bird@...y.com,
        amir73il@...il.com, dan.carpenter@...cle.com, daniel@...ll.ch,
        jdike@...toit.com, joel@....id.au, julia.lawall@...6.fr,
        khilman@...libre.com, knut.omang@...cle.com, logang@...tatee.com,
        mpe@...erman.id.au, pmladek@...e.com, rdunlap@...radead.org,
        richard@....at, rientjes@...gle.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        wfg@...ux.intel.com, Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 11/18] kunit: test: add the concept of assertions

Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-08-12 11:24:14)
> Add support for assertions which are like expectations except the test
> terminates if the assertion is not satisfied.
> 
> The idea with assertions is that you use them to state all the
> preconditions for your test. Logically speaking, these are the premises
> of the test case, so if a premise isn't true, there is no point in
> continuing the test case because there are no conclusions that can be
> drawn without the premises. Whereas, the expectation is the thing you
> are trying to prove. It is not used universally in x-unit style test
> frameworks, but I really like it as a convention.  You could still
> express the idea of a premise using the above idiom, but I think
> KUNIT_ASSERT_* states the intended idea perfectly.
> 
> 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: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>

> + * Sets an expectation that the values that @left and @right evaluate to are
> + * not equal. This is semantically equivalent to
> + * KUNIT_ASSERT_TRUE(@test, strcmp((@left), (@right))). See KUNIT_ASSERT_TRUE()
> + * for more information.
> + */
> +#define KUNIT_ASSERT_STRNEQ(test, left, right)                                \
> +               KUNIT_BINARY_STR_NE_ASSERTION(test,                            \
> +                                             KUNIT_ASSERTION,                 \
> +                                             left,                            \
> +                                             right)
> +
> +#define KUNIT_ASSERT_STRNEQ_MSG(test, left, right, fmt, ...)                  \
> +               KUNIT_BINARY_STR_NE_MSG_ASSERTION(test,                        \
> +                                                 KUNIT_ASSERTION,             \
> +                                                 left,                        \
> +                                                 right,                       \
> +                                                 fmt,                         \

Same question about tabbing too.

> diff --git a/kunit/test-test.c b/kunit/test-test.c
> index 88f4cdf03db2a..058f3fb37458a 100644
> --- a/kunit/test-test.c
> +++ b/kunit/test-test.c
> @@ -78,11 +78,13 @@ static int kunit_try_catch_test_init(struct kunit *test)
>         struct kunit_try_catch_test_context *ctx;
>  
>         ctx = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*ctx), GFP_KERNEL);
> +       KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, ctx);

Ah ok. Question still stands if kunit_kzalloc() should just have the
assertion on failure.

>         test->priv = ctx;
>  
>         ctx->try_catch = kunit_kmalloc(test,
>                                        sizeof(*ctx->try_catch),
>                                        GFP_KERNEL);
> +       KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, ctx->try_catch);
>