linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 linux-kselftest-test 0/3] kunit: support building core/tests as modules

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, 14 Oct 2019 15:02:03 +0100 (BST)
From:   Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@...cle.com>
To:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
cc:     Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@...cle.com>,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, brendanhiggins@...gle.com,
        skhan@...uxfoundation.org, keescook@...omium.org,
        yzaikin@...gle.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com, catalin.marinas@....com,
        joe.lawrence@...hat.com, penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp,
        schowdary@...dia.com, urezki@...il.com,
        andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, changbin.du@...el.com,
        kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 linux-kselftest-test 0/3] kunit: support building
 core/tests as modules



On Mon, 14 Oct 2019, Luis Chamberlain wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 03:55:43PM +0100, Alan Maguire wrote:
> > The current kunit execution model is to provide base kunit functionality
> > and tests built-in to the kernel.  The aim of this series is to allow
> > building kunit itself and tests as modules.  This in turn allows a
> > simple form of selective execution; load the module you wish to test.
> > In doing so, kunit itself (if also built as a module) will be loaded as
> > an implicit dependency.
> > 
> > Because this requires a core API modification - if a module delivers
> > multiple suites, they must be declared with the kunit_test_suites()
> > macro - we're proposing this patch as a candidate to be applied to the
> > test tree before too many kunit consumers appear.  We attempt to deal
> > with existing consumers in patch 1.
> 
> This is neat and makes sense to me.

Thanks for taking a look!

> However the ordering of the patches
> seems odd. If modules depend on kunit module, then shouldn't that go
> first? Ie, we want this to be bisectable in proper order.
> 

The reasoning here is it seemed a more likely scenario that users mught  
build kunit built-in (CONFIG_KUNIT=y) along with test suites built as 
modules (CONFIG_KUNIT_TEST=m). So the intermediate state after patch 2 - 
tests buildable as modules while kunit is still built-in-only - made more 
sense to me as something users might do in practice so that's why I 
ordered things that way.  I'm working on a new revision of the patchset
though, so if you feel strongly about this shout and I'll try and accommodate
the alternative ordering.

Thanks!

Alan  

>   Luis
>