| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2020 09:20:16 +0000 (GMT)
From: Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@...cle.com>
To: shuah <shuah@...nel.org>
cc: Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@...cle.com>, brendanhiggins@...gle.com,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, 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,
urezki@...il.com, andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com,
corbet@....net, davidgow@...gle.com, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca,
tytso@....edu, mcgrof@...nel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
Knut Omang <knut.omang@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v7 linux-kselftest-test 3/6] kunit: allow kunit
tests to be loaded as a module
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020, shuah wrote:
> Hi Alan,
>
> Thanks for the resend.
>
> On 1/6/20 3:28 PM, Alan Maguire wrote:
> > As tests are added to kunit, it will become less feasible to execute
> > all built tests together. By supporting modular tests we provide
> > a simple way to do selective execution on a running system; specifying
> >
> > CONFIG_KUNIT=y
> > CONFIG_KUNIT_EXAMPLE_TEST=m
> >
> > ...means we can simply "insmod example-test.ko" to run the tests.
> >
> > To achieve this we need to do the following:
> >
> > o export the required symbols in kunit
> > o string-stream tests utilize non-exported symbols so for now we skip
> > building them when CONFIG_KUNIT_TEST=m.
> > o drivers/base/power/qos-test.c contains a few unexported interface
> > references, namely freq_qos_read_value() and freq_constraints_init().
> > Both of these could be potentially defined as static inline functions
> > in include/linux/pm_qos.h, but for now we simply avoid supporting
> > module build for that test suite.
> > o support a new way of declaring test suites. Because a module cannot
> > do multiple late_initcall()s, we provide a kunit_test_suites() macro
> > to declare multiple suites within the same module at once.
> > o some test module names would have been too general ("test-test"
> > and "example-test" for kunit tests, "inode-test" for ext4 tests);
> > rename these as appropriate ("kunit-test", "kunit-example-test"
> > and "ext4-inode-test" respectively).
> >
> > Also define kunit_test_suite() via kunit_test_suites()
> > as callers in other trees may need the old definition.
> >
> > Co-developed-by: Knut Omang <knut.omang@...cle.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Knut Omang <knut.omang@...cle.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@...cle.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
> > Acked-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu> # for ext4 bits
> > Acked-by: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com> # For list-test
> > Reported-by: kbuild test robot <lkp@...el.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/base/power/qos-test.c | 2 +-
> > fs/ext4/Kconfig | 2 +-
> > fs/ext4/Makefile | 3 +-
> > fs/ext4/inode-test.c | 4 ++-
> > include/kunit/test.h | 37
> > ++++++++++++++++------
> > kernel/sysctl-test.c | 4 ++-
> > lib/Kconfig.debug | 4 +--
> > lib/kunit/Kconfig | 4 +--
> > lib/kunit/Makefile | 10 ++++--
> > lib/kunit/assert.c | 8 +++++
> > lib/kunit/{example-test.c => kunit-example-test.c} | 4 ++-
> > lib/kunit/{test-test.c => kunit-test.c} | 5 +--
> > lib/kunit/string-stream-test.c | 2 +-
> > lib/kunit/test.c | 8 +++++
> > lib/kunit/try-catch.c | 2 ++
> > lib/list-test.c | 4 ++-
> > 16 files changed, 76 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
> > rename lib/kunit/{example-test.c => kunit-example-test.c} (97%)
> > rename lib/kunit/{test-test.c => kunit-test.c} (98%)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/base/power/qos-test.c b/drivers/base/power/qos-test.c
> > index 3115db0..79fc6c4 100644
> > --- a/drivers/base/power/qos-test.c
> > +++ b/drivers/base/power/qos-test.c
> > @@ -114,4 +114,4 @@ static void freq_qos_test_readd(struct kunit *test)
> > .name = "qos-kunit-test",
> > .test_cases = pm_qos_test_cases,
> > };
> > -kunit_test_suite(pm_qos_test_module);
> > +kunit_test_suites(&pm_qos_test_module);
> > diff --git a/fs/ext4/Kconfig b/fs/ext4/Kconfig
> > index ef42ab0..435510f 100644
> > --- a/fs/ext4/Kconfig
> > +++ b/fs/ext4/Kconfig
> > @@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ config EXT4_DEBUG
> > echo 1 > /sys/module/ext4/parameters/mballoc_debug
> >
> > config EXT4_KUNIT_TESTS
> > - bool "KUnit tests for ext4"
> > + tristate "KUnit tests for ext4"
> > select EXT4_FS
> > depends on KUNIT
> > help
> > diff --git a/fs/ext4/Makefile b/fs/ext4/Makefile
> > index 840b91d..4ccb3c9 100644
> > --- a/fs/ext4/Makefile
> > +++ b/fs/ext4/Makefile
> > @@ -13,5 +13,6 @@ ext4-y := balloc.o bitmap.o block_validity.o dir.o
> > ext4_jbd2.o extents.o \
> >
> > ext4-$(CONFIG_EXT4_FS_POSIX_ACL) += acl.o
> > ext4-$(CONFIG_EXT4_FS_SECURITY) += xattr_security.o
> > -ext4-$(CONFIG_EXT4_KUNIT_TESTS) += inode-test.o
> > +ext4-inode-test-objs += inode-test.o
> > +obj-$(CONFIG_EXT4_KUNIT_TESTS) += ext4-inode-test.o
> > ext4-$(CONFIG_FS_VERITY) += verity.o
> > diff --git a/fs/ext4/inode-test.c b/fs/ext4/inode-test.c
> > index 92a9da1..95620bf 100644
> > --- a/fs/ext4/inode-test.c
> > +++ b/fs/ext4/inode-test.c
> > @@ -269,4 +269,6 @@ static void inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding(struct kunit
> > *test)
> > .test_cases = ext4_inode_test_cases,
> > };
> >
> > -kunit_test_suite(ext4_inode_test_suite);
> > +kunit_test_suites(&ext4_inode_test_suite);
> > +
> > +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
> > diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h
> > index dba4830..2dfb550 100644
> > --- a/include/kunit/test.h
> > +++ b/include/kunit/test.h
> > @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
> > #include <kunit/assert.h>
> > #include <kunit/try-catch.h>
> > #include <linux/kernel.h>
> > +#include <linux/module.h>
> > #include <linux/slab.h>
> > #include <linux/types.h>
> >
> > @@ -197,31 +198,47 @@ struct kunit {
> > int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite);
> >
> > /**
> > - * kunit_test_suite() - used to register a &struct kunit_suite with KUnit.
> > + * kunit_test_suites() - used to register one or more &struct kunit_suite
> > + * with KUnit.
> > *
> > - * @suite: a statically allocated &struct kunit_suite.
> > + * @suites: a statically allocated list of &struct kunit_suite.
> > *
> > - * Registers @suite with the test framework. See &struct kunit_suite for
> > + * Registers @suites with the test framework. See &struct kunit_suite for
> > * more information.
> > *
> > - * NOTE: Currently KUnit tests are all run as late_initcalls; this means
> > + * When builtin, KUnit tests are all run as late_initcalls; this means
> > * that they cannot test anything where tests must run at a different init
> > * phase. One significant restriction resulting from this is that KUnit
> > * cannot reliably test anything that is initialize in the late_init
> > phase;
> > * another is that KUnit is useless to test things that need to be run in
> > * an earlier init phase.
> > *
> > + * An alternative is to build the tests as a module. Because modules
> > + * do not support multiple late_initcall()s, we need to initialize an
> > + * array of suites for a module.
> > + *
> > * TODO(brendanhiggins@...gle.com): Don't run all KUnit tests as
> > * late_initcalls. I have some future work planned to dispatch all KUnit
> > * tests from the same place, and at the very least to do so after
> > * everything else is definitely initialized.
> > */
> > -#define kunit_test_suite(suite)
> > \
> > - static int kunit_suite_init##suite(void)
> > \
> > - {
> > \
> > - return kunit_run_tests(&suite);
> > \
> > - }
> > \
> > - late_initcall(kunit_suite_init##suite)
> > +#define kunit_test_suites(...)
> > \
> > + static struct kunit_suite *suites[] = { __VA_ARGS__, NULL}; \
> > + static int kunit_test_suites_init(void) \
> > + { \
> > + unsigned int i; \
> > + for (i = 0; suites[i] != NULL; i++) \
> > + kunit_run_tests(suites[i]); \
> > + return 0; \
> > + } \
> > + late_initcall(kunit_test_suites_init); \
> > + static void __exit kunit_test_suites_exit(void) \
> > + { \
> > + return; \
> > + } \
> > + module_exit(kunit_test_suites_exit)
> > +
> > +#define kunit_test_suite(suite) kunit_test_suites(&suite)
>
> This macro is getting more and more complex. Is there a good reason
> for this code to stay as a macro?
>
I'm not sure if there's a better way, but by keeping it as a macro
we get to define init/exit functions in context that will be used when the
code is built as a module, and not otherwise. The body of
kunit_test_suites_init()/kunit_test_suites_exit() will likely evolve, and
when they do we could take the oppportunity to simplify those functions
to just call kunit functions to do the init/cleanup.
Thanks!
Alan
> thanks,
> -- Shuah
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists