linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v1 3/6] kunit: test: create a single centralized executor for all tests

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:   Thu, 23 Jan 2020 14:54:55 -0800
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
To:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@...cle.com>,
        Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>,
        Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>, rppt@...ux.ibm.com,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Knut Omang <knut.omang@...cle.com>,
        linux-um <linux-um@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        KUnit Development <kunit-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v1 3/6] kunit: test: create a single centralized executor
 for all tests

On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 12:04 AM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-12-16 14:05:52)
> > diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h
> > index dba48304b3bd3..c070798ebb765 100644
> > --- a/include/kunit/test.h
> > +++ b/include/kunit/test.h
> > @@ -217,11 +217,8 @@ int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite);
> >   * everything else is definitely initialized.
> >   */
> >  #define kunit_test_suite(suite)                                                       \
> > -       static int kunit_suite_init##suite(void)                               \
>
> Oh this should have been __init before.

No, the stuff in this patch shouldn't be init. With the work that Alan
has been doing (adding support for modules, debugfs); the test code
can run after booting, so init in any of this code is incorrect.

> > -       {                                                                      \
> > -               return kunit_run_tests(&suite);                                \
> > -       }                                                                      \
> > -       late_initcall(kunit_suite_init##suite)
> > +       static struct kunit_suite *__kunit_suite_##suite                       \
> > +       __used __aligned(8) __section(.kunit_test_suites) = &suite
> >
> >  /*
> >   * Like kunit_alloc_resource() below, but returns the struct kunit_resource
> > diff --git a/lib/kunit/executor.c b/lib/kunit/executor.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000000000..978086cfd257d
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/lib/kunit/executor.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > +/*
> > + * Base unit test (KUnit) API.
> > + *
> > + * Copyright (C) 2019, Google LLC.
> > + * Author: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
> > + */
> > +
> > +#include <linux/init.h>
> > +#include <linux/printk.h>
> > +#include <kunit/test.h>
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * These symbols point to the .kunit_test_suites section and are defined in
> > + * include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h, and consequently must be extern.
> > + */
> > +extern struct kunit_suite *__kunit_suites_start[];
> > +extern struct kunit_suite *__kunit_suites_end[];
> > +
> > +static bool kunit_run_all_tests(void)
>
> Should be __init?

It could be, I think. Alan's code doesn't call this, so for now we
might as well make it __init.

> > +{
> > +       struct kunit_suite **suite;
>
> Can this be const? And the linker references above too?

Good catch. Will fix.

> > +       bool has_test_failed = false;
> > +
> > +       for (suite = __kunit_suites_start;
> > +            suite < __kunit_suites_end;
> > +            ++suite) {
> > +               if (kunit_run_tests(*suite))
> > +                       has_test_failed = true;
> > +       }
> > +
> > +       return !has_test_failed;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int kunit_executor_init(void)
>
> Should be __init?

Will do.

> > +{
> > +       if (kunit_run_all_tests())
> > +               return 0;
> > +       else
> > +               return -EFAULT;
>
> Why two functions instead of just one that is the target of the
> late_initcall? Nitpick: deindent that last return and take it out of the
> else.

Yeah, it probably makes more sense to just call kunit_run_all_tests
and have it return an int.

> > +}
> > +
> > +late_initcall(kunit_executor_init);