linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] lib: Convert test

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: <1b452380-53a5-f396-bf2f-97736db28afb@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Date:   Fri, 6 Nov 2020 11:31:43 +0100
From:   Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
To:     Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@...il.com>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        brendanhiggins@...gle.com, skhan@...uxfoundation.org,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com,
        alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com, rdunlap@...radead.org,
        idryomov@...il.com, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] lib: Convert test_printf.c to KUnit

On 06/11/2020 05.04, Arpitha Raghunandan wrote:
> 
> The total number of "atoms" can be printed by maintaining a static variable
> total_count that can be incremented as is in the original test_printf test.
> But, the reporting of the random seed currently is done in kselftest and so
> will not show up with KUnit. I am not really sure which is better in this case.

So my real questions are: Why do we have both kselftest and kunit?
What's the difference? Are there any plans to merge the two frameworks?
What's the point of converting from one to the other if not? And if one
is to take a currently stand-alone ad hoc test module and place it under
one of those umbrellas, which one should one choose?

I don't really care if the "deterministic random testing" prep work goes
with kstm or kunit; whichever framework could provide that boilerplate
is the framework I'd make sure to use for subsequent work on various tests.

The reporting of the number of "atoms" in the printf test suite is
something I'd miss if not preserved, but if there's sufficient good
rationale for doing the conversion to Kunit I could live with that. But
if kunit then can't provide a per-test-module rnd_state and handle its
seeding (and reporting of what seed was used), I won't ack the conversion.

Rasmus