linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v1 0/6] kunit: create a centralized executor to dispatch all KUnit 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 28 Jan 2020 12:36:49 -0600
From:   Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
To:     Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
Cc:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@...cle.com>,
        Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>,
        David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, rppt@...ux.ibm.com,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
        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 0/6] kunit: create a centralized executor to dispatch all
 KUnit tests

On 1/28/20 1:19 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:40 AM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 1/23/20 4:40 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>> Sorry for the late reply. I am still catching up from being on vacation.
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 2:40 PM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>> It does beg the question if this means kunit is happy to not be a tool
>>>> to test pre basic setup stuff (terminology used in init.c, meaning prior
>>>> to running all init levels). I suspect this is the case.
>>>
>>> Not sure. I still haven't seen any cases where this is necessary, so I
>>> am not super worried about it. Regardless, I don't think this patchset
>>> really changes anything in that regard, we are moving from late_init
>>> to after late_init, so it isn't that big of a change for most use
>>> cases.
>>>
>>> Please share if you can think of some things that need to be tested in
>>> early init.
>>
>> I don't have a specific need for this right now.  I had not thought about
>> how the current kunit implementation forces all kunit tests to run at a
>> specific initcall level before reading this email thread.
>>
>> I can see the value of being able to have some tests run at different
>> initcall levels to verify what functionality is available and working
>> at different points in the boot sequence.
> 
> Let's cross that bridge when we get there. It should be fairly easy to
> add that functionality.

Yes. I just wanted to add the thought to the back of your mind so that
it does not get precluded by future changes to the kunit architecture.

> 
>> But more important than early initcall levels, I do not want the
>> framework to prevent using or testing code and data that are marked
>> as '__init'.  So it is important to retain a way to invoke the tests
>> while __init code and data are available, if there is also a change
>> to generally invoke the tests later.
> 
> Definitely. For now that still works as long as you don't build KUnit
> as a module, but I think Alan's new patches which allow KUnit to be
> run at runtime via debugfs could cause some difficulty there. Again,

Yes, Alan's patches are part of what triggered me thinking about the
issues I raised.


> we could add Kconfigs to control this, but the compiler nevertheless
> complains because it doesn't know what phase KUnit runs in.
> 
> Is there any way to tell the compiler that it is okay for non __init
> code to call __init code? I would prefer not to have a duplicate
> version of all the KUnit libraries with all the symbols marked __init.

I'm not sure.  The build messages have always been useful and valid in
my context, so I never thought to consider that possibility.

> Thoughts?
> .
>