linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] kunit: kunit_parser: making parser more robust

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAFd5g44ZMYigCbg4u7_Bfhgqt-hPJRbumoHNf3Buz50fkm_Y7g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 27 Feb 2020 16:36:22 -0800
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
To:     Heidi Fahim <heidifahim@...gle.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        KUnit Development <kunit-dev@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kunit: kunit_parser: making parser more robust

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 4:09 PM Heidi Fahim <heidifahim@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > -TAP_ENTRIES = re.compile(r'^(TAP|\t?ok|\t?not ok|\t?[0-9]+\.\.[0-9]+|\t?#).*$')
> > > +TAP_ENTRIES = re.compile(r'(TAP|\t?ok|\t?not ok|\t?[0-9]+\.\.[0-9]+|\t# .*?:.*?).*$')
> >
> > Since you now strip off prefixes using length, does the old TAP regex no
> > longer work?
> >
>
> Using old regex (i.e. match instead of search) still works - do you
> prefer this be reverted where possible or be changed to search? Search
> is a little more relaxed when it comes to alignment of the TAP output
> (i.e. some lines could have extra leading whitespaces), but right now
> is not necessary.

I would prefer keeping the old regexes. It makes the change smaller. I
also would prefer to not relax the alignment if we don't need to.

> > >  def consume_non_diagnositic(lines: List[str]) -> None:
> > > -     while lines and not TAP_ENTRIES.match(lines[0]):
> > > +     while lines and not TAP_ENTRIES.search(lines[0]):
> > >               lines.pop(0)
> > >
> > >  def save_non_diagnositic(lines: List[str], test_case: TestCase) -> None:
> > > -     while lines and not TAP_ENTRIES.match(lines[0]):
> > > +     while lines and not TAP_ENTRIES.search(lines[0]):
> > >               test_case.log.append(lines[0])
> > >               lines.pop(0)
> > >
> > >  OkNotOkResult = namedtuple('OkNotOkResult', ['is_ok','description', 'text'])

[...]

> > > @@ -234,11 +234,11 @@ def parse_test_suite(lines: List[str]) -> TestSuite:
> > >       expected_test_case_num = parse_subtest_plan(lines)
> > >       if not expected_test_case_num:
> > >               return None
> > > -     test_case = parse_test_case(lines, expected_test_case_num > 0)
> > > -     expected_test_case_num -= 1
> > > -     while test_case:
> > > +     while expected_test_case_num > 0:
> > > +             test_case = parse_test_case(lines)
> > > +             if not test_case:
> > > +                     break
> > >               test_suite.cases.append(test_case)
> > > -             test_case = parse_test_case(lines, expected_test_case_num > 0)
> > >               expected_test_case_num -= 1
> >
> > Do we use this variable anymore?
>
> Yes, this decides whether we are expecting another test case or if
> we've completed the test suite

Ah gotcha. Sorry, I am not sure how I missed that.

> > >       if parse_ok_not_ok_test_suite(lines, test_suite):
> > >               test_suite.status = bubble_up_test_case_errors(test_suite)
> > > @@ -250,7 +250,7 @@ def parse_test_suite(lines: List[str]) -> TestSuite:
> > >               print('failed to parse end of suite' + lines[0])
> > >               return None
> > >
> > > -TAP_HEADER = re.compile(r'^TAP version 14$')
> > > +TAP_HEADER = re.compile(r'TAP version 14$')
> > >
> > >  def parse_tap_header(lines: List[str]) -> bool:
> > >       consume_non_diagnositic(lines)

Cheers!