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]
Message-ID: <CAFd5g47jrUd+ES4AaWsLDRCfsGiKDB-rOP6TR-NdymCeVAK3Kg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Aug 2019 22:09:26 -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 v12 11/18] kunit: test: add the concept of assertions

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 9:55 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> 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.

Yep. WIll fix.

> > 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.

Right. In the previous patch KUNIT_ASSERT_* doesn't exist yet, so I
can't use it. And rather than fall back to return -ENOMEM like I
should have, I evidently forgot to do that.

> >         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);
> >