linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] kunit: tool: fix running kunit

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]

Date:   Sat, 8 Aug 2020 13:45:05 +0800
From:   David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
To:     Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
Cc:     Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.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: [PATCH v1 1/2] kunit: tool: fix running kunit_tool from outside
 kernel tree

On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 9:17 AM Brendan Higgins
<brendanhiggins@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> Currently kunit_tool does not work correctly when executed from a path
> outside of the kernel tree, so make sure that the current working
> directory is correct and the kunit_dir is properly initialized before
> running.
>
> Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
> ---
>  tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py | 8 ++++++++
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py
> index 425ef40067e7..96344a11ff1f 100755
> --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py
> +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py
> @@ -237,9 +237,14 @@ def main(argv, linux=None):
>
>         cli_args = parser.parse_args(argv)
>
> +       if get_kernel_root_path():
> +               print('cd ' + get_kernel_root_path())
Do we want to print this, or is it a leftover debug statement?


> +               os.chdir(get_kernel_root_path())
> +
>         if cli_args.subcommand == 'run':
>                 if not os.path.exists(cli_args.build_dir):
>                         os.mkdir(cli_args.build_dir)
> +                       create_default_kunitconfig()
Why are we adding this everywhere when it's already in config_tests,
which should already be called in all of the places where a
kunitconfig is required?
Is the goal to always copy the default kunitconfig when creating a new
build_dir? While I can sort-of see why we might want to do that, if
the build dir doesn't exist, most of the subcommands will fail anyway
(maybe we should only create the build-dir for 'config' and 'run'?)


>
>                 if not linux:
>                         linux = kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree()
> @@ -257,6 +262,7 @@ def main(argv, linux=None):
>                 if cli_args.build_dir:
>                         if not os.path.exists(cli_args.build_dir):
>                                 os.mkdir(cli_args.build_dir)
> +                               create_default_kunitconfig()
>
>                 if not linux:
>                         linux = kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree()
> @@ -273,6 +279,7 @@ def main(argv, linux=None):
>                 if cli_args.build_dir:
>                         if not os.path.exists(cli_args.build_dir):
>                                 os.mkdir(cli_args.build_dir)
> +                               create_default_kunitconfig()
>
>                 if not linux:
>                         linux = kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree()
> @@ -291,6 +298,7 @@ def main(argv, linux=None):
>                 if cli_args.build_dir:
>                         if not os.path.exists(cli_args.build_dir):
>                                 os.mkdir(cli_args.build_dir)
> +                               create_default_kunitconfig()
>
>                 if not linux:
>                         linux = kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree()
>
> base-commit: 30185b69a2d533c4ba6ca926b8390ce7de495e29
> --
> 2.28.0.236.gb10cc79966-goog
>