linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v18 00/19] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework

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: <CAFd5g456rBSp177EkYAwsF+KZ0rxJa90mzUpW2M3R7tWbMAh9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 4 Oct 2019 16:52:06 -0700
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
To:     "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc:     shuah <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <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>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        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 <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <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 v18 00/19] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit
 testing framework

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 4:30 PM Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@....edu> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 04:47:09PM -0600, shuah wrote:
> > > However, if I encourage arbitrary tests/improvements into my KUnit
> > > branch, it further diverges away from torvalds/master, and is more
> > > likely that there will be a merge conflict or issue that is not related
> > > to the core KUnit changes that will cause the whole thing to be
> > > rejected again in v5.5.
> >
> > The idea is that the new development will happen based on kunit in
> > linux-kselftest next. It will work just fine. As we accepts patches,
> > they will go on top of kunit that is in linux-next now.
>
> I don't see how this would work.  If I add unit tests to ext4, they
> would be in fs/ext4.  And to the extent that I need to add test mocks
> to allow the unit tests to work, they will involve changes to existing
> files in fs/ext4.  I can't put them in the ext4.git tree without
> pulling in the kunit changes into the ext4 git tree.  And if they ext4
> unit tests land in the kunit tree, it would be a receipe for large
> numbers of merge conflicts.

That's where I was originally coming from.

So here's a dumb idea: what if we merged KUnit through the ext4 tree?
I imagine that could potentially get very confusing when we go back to
sending changes in through the kselftest tree, but at least it means
that ext4 can use it in the meantime, which means that it at least
gets to be useful to one group of people. Also, since Ted seems pretty
keen on using this, I imagine it is much more likely to produce real
world, immediately useful tests not written by me (I'm not being lazy,
I just think it is better to get other people's experiences other than
my own).

Thoughts?