linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] bits: Add tests of GENMASK

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: <CAHp75VeMDkZjd1d8nTYRk8duJ4mR0NxqYhqOmuqAjcJk8K2hzg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 9 Jun 2020 17:11:24 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Rikard Falkeborn <rikard.falkeborn@...il.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@...il.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kbuild test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
        Syed Nayyar Waris <syednwaris@...il.com>,
        William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@...il.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] bits: Add tests of GENMASK

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 1:18 AM Rikard Falkeborn
<rikard.falkeborn@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Add tests of GENMASK and GENMASK_ULL.
>
> A few test cases that should fail compilation are provided
> under #ifdef TEST_GENMASK_FAILURES
>

LGTM, thanks!
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>

> Suggested-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Rikard Falkeborn <rikard.falkeborn@...il.com>
> ---
> I did not move it to test_bitops.c, because I think it makes more sense
> that test_bitops.c tests bitops.h and test_bits.c tests bits.h, but if
> you disagree, I can move it.

We could do it later and actually other way around, since you are
using KUnit, while the test_bitops.h doesn't.

>
> v2-v3
> Updated commit message and ifdef after suggestion fron Geert. Also fixed
> a typo in the description of the file.
>
> v1-v2
> New patch.
>
>  lib/Kconfig.debug | 11 +++++++
>  lib/Makefile      |  1 +
>  lib/test_bits.c   | 73 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 85 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 lib/test_bits.c
>
> diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug
> index 333e878d8af9..9557cb570fb9 100644
> --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug
> +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug
> @@ -2182,6 +2182,17 @@ config LINEAR_RANGES_TEST
>
>           If unsure, say N.
>
> +config BITS_TEST
> +       tristate "KUnit test for bits.h"
> +       depends on KUNIT
> +       help
> +         This builds the bits unit test.
> +         Tests the logic of macros defined in bits.h.
> +         For more information on KUnit and unit tests in general please refer
> +         to the KUnit documentation in Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/.
> +
> +         If unsure, say N.
> +
>  config TEST_UDELAY
>         tristate "udelay test driver"
>         help
> diff --git a/lib/Makefile b/lib/Makefile
> index 315516fa4ef4..2ce9892e3e63 100644
> --- a/lib/Makefile
> +++ b/lib/Makefile
> @@ -314,3 +314,4 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_OBJAGG) += objagg.o
>  # KUnit tests
>  obj-$(CONFIG_LIST_KUNIT_TEST) += list-test.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_LINEAR_RANGES_TEST) += test_linear_ranges.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_BITS_TEST) += test_bits.o
> diff --git a/lib/test_bits.c b/lib/test_bits.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..e2fcf24463bf
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/lib/test_bits.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
> +/*
> + * Test cases for functions and macros in bits.h
> + */
> +
> +#include <kunit/test.h>
> +#include <linux/bits.h>
> +
> +
> +void genmask_test(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +       KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 1ul, GENMASK(0, 0));
> +       KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 3ul, GENMASK(1, 0));
> +       KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 6ul, GENMASK(2, 1));
> +       KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0xFFFFFFFFul, GENMASK(31, 0));
> +
> +#ifdef TEST_GENMASK_FAILURES
> +       /* these should fail compilation */
> +       GENMASK(0, 1);
> +       GENMASK(0, 10);
> +       GENMASK(9, 10);
> +#endif
> +
> +
> +}
> +
> +void genmask_ull_test(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +       KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 1ull, GENMASK_ULL(0, 0));
> +       KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 3ull, GENMASK_ULL(1, 0));
> +       KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0x000000ffffe00000ull, GENMASK_ULL(39, 21));
> +       KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0xffffffffffffffffull, GENMASK_ULL(63, 0));
> +
> +#ifdef TEST_GENMASK_FAILURES
> +       /* these should fail compilation */
> +       GENMASK_ULL(0, 1);
> +       GENMASK_ULL(0, 10);
> +       GENMASK_ULL(9, 10);
> +#endif
> +}
> +
> +void genmask_input_check_test(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +       unsigned int x, y;
> +       int z, w;
> +
> +       /* Unknown input */
> +       KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, GENMASK_INPUT_CHECK(x, 0));
> +       KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, GENMASK_INPUT_CHECK(0, x));
> +       KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, GENMASK_INPUT_CHECK(x, y));
> +
> +       KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, GENMASK_INPUT_CHECK(z, 0));
> +       KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, GENMASK_INPUT_CHECK(0, z));
> +       KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, GENMASK_INPUT_CHECK(z, w));
> +
> +       /* Valid input */
> +       KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, GENMASK_INPUT_CHECK(1, 1));
> +       KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, GENMASK_INPUT_CHECK(39, 21));
> +}
> +
> +
> +static struct kunit_case bits_test_cases[] = {
> +       KUNIT_CASE(genmask_test),
> +       KUNIT_CASE(genmask_ull_test),
> +       KUNIT_CASE(genmask_input_check_test),
> +       {}
> +};
> +
> +static struct kunit_suite bits_test_suite = {
> +       .name = "bits-test",
> +       .test_cases = bits_test_cases,
> +};
> +kunit_test_suite(bits_test_suite);
> --
> 2.27.0
>


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko