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]
Message-ID: <CAFd5g45C98_70Utp=QBWg_tKxaUMJ-ArQvjWbG9q6=dixfHBxw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 1 May 2020 13:31:11 -0700
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
To:     Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca,
        Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
        John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>, jmorris@...ei.org,
        serge@...lyn.com,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        KUnit Development <kunit-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kunit: Kconfig: enable a KUNIT_RUN_ALL fragment

On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 1:35 AM Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> Make it easier to enable all KUnit fragments.  This is needed for kernel
> test-systems, so its easy to get all KUnit tests enabled and if new gets
> added they will be enabled as well.  Fragments that has to be builtin
> will be missed if CONFIG_KUNIT_RUN_ALL is set as a module.
>
> Adding 'if !KUNIT_RUN_ALL' so individual test can be turned of if
> someone wants that even though KUNIT_RUN_ALL is enabled.

I would LOVE IT, if you could make this work! I have been trying to
figure out the best way to run all KUnit tests for a long time now.

That being said, I am a bit skeptical that this approach will be much
more successful than just using allyesconfig. Either way, there are
tests coming down the pipeline that are incompatible with each other
(the KASAN test and the KCSAN test will be incompatible). Even so,
tests like the apparmor test require a lot of non-default
configuration to compile. In the end, I am not sure how many tests we
will really be able to turn on this way.

Thoughts?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ