linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] init: main: add KUnit to kernel init

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: <CAFd5g45Fi8n9YsMqV0FNrz3+wtoVtvg_Hvo7yg-MdJwwqxXqTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 Jun 2020 13:15:14 -0700
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
To:     Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
Cc:     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>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        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>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] init: main: add KUnit to kernel init

On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 11:13 AM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com> wrote:

Sorry it took so long to respond. I am reviving this patchset now,
about to send out a new revision and I just saw this comment.

> On 2/27/20 7:20 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > Remove KUnit from init calls entirely, instead call directly from
> > kernel_init().
> >
> > Co-developed-by: Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@...cle.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@...cle.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
> > ---
> >  include/kunit/test.h | 9 +++++++++
> >  init/main.c          | 4 ++++
> >  lib/kunit/executor.c | 4 +---
> >  3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h
> > index 8a02f93a6b505..8689dd1459844 100644
> > --- a/include/kunit/test.h
> > +++ b/include/kunit/test.h
> > @@ -197,6 +197,15 @@ void kunit_init_test(struct kunit *test, const char *name);
> >
> >  int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite);
> >
> > +#if IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_KUNIT)
>
> I suspected this would not work if a unittest was builtin but CONFIG_KUNIT
> was set to module.
>
> So I decided to experiment a bit to verify my assumptions (before applying
> this patch series).  I tried to set CONFIG_KUNIT to module, then set
> CONFIG_KUNIT_EXAMPLE_TEST to built in.  Kconfig does not let me do this
> because KUNIT_EXAMPLE_TEST is inside a 'if KUNIT' in lib/kunit/Kconfig,
> but instead switches KUNIT_EXAMPLE_TEST to a module, and warns that it
> has done so.  This was a bit of a surprise, but seems reasonable.
>
> So my next assumption is that the architecture of KUnit expects
> each individual unit test config option to depend upon CONFIG_KUNIT.
> If this is the case, please clearly document that requirement in
> the KUnit documentation.

Your assumption is correct. I will fix this in the Kconfig
documentation in a separate patch.

> > +int kunit_run_all_tests(void);
> > +#else
> > +static inline int kunit_run_all_tests(void)
> > +{
> > +     return 0;
> > +}
> > +#endif /* IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_KUNIT) */
> > +
> >  /*
> >   * If a test suite is built-in, module_init() gets translated into
> >   * an initcall which we don't want as the idea is that for builtins
> > diff --git a/init/main.c b/init/main.c
> > index ee4947af823f3..7875a5c486dc4 100644
> > --- a/init/main.c
> > +++ b/init/main.c
> > @@ -104,6 +104,8 @@
> >  #define CREATE_TRACE_POINTS
> >  #include <trace/events/initcall.h>
> >
> > +#include <kunit/test.h>
> > +
> >  static int kernel_init(void *);
> >
> >  extern void init_IRQ(void);
> > @@ -1444,6 +1446,8 @@ static noinline void __init kernel_init_freeable(void)
> >
> >       do_basic_setup();
> >
> > +     kunit_run_all_tests();
> > +
> >       console_on_rootfs();
> >
> >       /*
> > diff --git a/lib/kunit/executor.c b/lib/kunit/executor.c
> > index 6429927d598a5..b75a46c560847 100644
> > --- a/lib/kunit/executor.c
> > +++ b/lib/kunit/executor.c
> > @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ extern struct kunit_suite * const * const __kunit_suites_end[];
> >
> >  #if IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_KUNIT)
> >
> > -static int kunit_run_all_tests(void)
> > +int kunit_run_all_tests(void)
> >  {
> >       struct kunit_suite * const * const *suites, * const *subsuite;
> >       bool has_test_failed = false;
> > @@ -31,6 +31,4 @@ static int kunit_run_all_tests(void)
> >       return 0;
> >  }
> >
> > -late_initcall(kunit_run_all_tests);
> > -
> >  #endif /* IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_KUNIT) */
> >
>