| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAGS_qxoP=iPZMoGGdRQDNf3a+C3PEkH=qBMy_3pSQtXKv82OVw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 15:41:10 -0800
From: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
To: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
Cc: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@...il.com>,
"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] kunit: Print test statistics on failure
On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 11:23 PM David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> When a number of tests fail, it can be useful to get higher-level
> statistics of how many tests are failing (or how many parameters are
> failing in parameterised tests), and in what cases or suites. This is
> already done by some non-KUnit tests, so add support for automatically
> generating these for KUnit tests.
>
> This change adds a 'kunit_stats_enabled' switch which has three values:
> - 0: No stats are printed (current behaviour)
> - 1: Stats are printed only for tests/suites with more than one
> subtests, and at least one failure (new default)
> - 2: Always print test statistics
I personally prefer having less options here, if possible.
a) I wonder if 0 can be dropped in favor of just using the default (1).
I don't know that showing test counts on failures (ideally a rare
occurrence) in the diagnostics would be enough of an annoyance that
people would want to turn it off.
b) And/or perhaps strike a compromise between 1/2.
We print the test stats whenever there are >1 subtests, regardless of
# of failures.
If we take both suggestions, then we just have one way, which is
appealing to me personally, but I don't know that people would like
that.
>
> For parameterised tests, the summary line looks as follows:
> " # inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding: 0 / 16 test parameters failed"
> For test suites, it looks like this:
> "# ext4_inode_test: (0 / 1) tests failed (0 / 16 test parameters)"
>
> kunit_tool is also updated to correctly ignore diagnostic lines, so that
> these statistics do not prevent the result from parsing.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
> ---
>
> This is largely a follow-up to the discussion here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/CABVgOSmy4n_LGwDS7yWfoLftcQzxv6S+iXx9Y=OPcgG2gu0z1w@mail.gmail.com/T/#t
>
> Does this seem like a sensible addition?
>
> Cheers,
> -- David
>
> lib/kunit/test.c | 71 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 72 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/kunit/test.c b/lib/kunit/test.c
> index ec9494e914ef..711e269366a7 100644
> --- a/lib/kunit/test.c
> +++ b/lib/kunit/test.c
> @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
> #include <kunit/test.h>
> #include <linux/kernel.h>
> #include <linux/kref.h>
> +#include <linux/moduleparam.h>
> #include <linux/sched/debug.h>
> #include <linux/sched.h>
>
> @@ -16,6 +17,40 @@
> #include "string-stream.h"
> #include "try-catch-impl.h"
>
> +/*
> + * KUnit statistic mode:
> + * 0 - disabled
> + * 1 - only when there is at least one failure, and more than one subtest
> + * 2 - enabled
> + */
> +static int kunit_stats_enabled = 1;
> +core_param(kunit_stats_enabled, kunit_stats_enabled, int, 0644);
> +
> +static bool kunit_should_print_stats(int num_failures, int num_subtests)
> +{
> + if (kunit_stats_enabled == 0)
> + return false;
> +
> + if (kunit_stats_enabled == 2)
> + return true;
> +
> + return (num_failures > 0 && num_subtests > 1);
> +}
> +
> +static void kunit_print_test_stats(struct kunit *test,
> + size_t num_failures, size_t num_subtests)
> +{
> + if (!kunit_should_print_stats(num_failures, num_subtests))
> + return;
> +
> + kunit_log(KERN_INFO, test,
> + KUNIT_SUBTEST_INDENT
> + "# %s: %lu / %lu test parameters failed",
> + test->name,
> + num_failures,
> + num_subtests);
> +}
> +
> /*
> * Append formatted message to log, size of which is limited to
> * KUNIT_LOG_SIZE bytes (including null terminating byte).
> @@ -346,15 +381,37 @@ static void kunit_run_case_catch_errors(struct kunit_suite *suite,
> test_case->success = test->success;
> }
>
> +static void kunit_print_suite_stats(struct kunit_suite *suite,
> + size_t num_failures,
> + size_t total_param_failures,
> + size_t total_params)
> +{
> + size_t num_cases = kunit_suite_num_test_cases(suite);
> +
> + if (!kunit_should_print_stats(num_failures, num_cases))
> + return;
> +
> + kunit_log(KERN_INFO, suite,
> + "# %s: (%lu / %lu) tests failed (%lu / %lu test parameters)",
> + suite->name,
> + num_failures,
> + num_cases,
> + total_param_failures,
> + total_params);
> +}
> +
> int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite)
> {
> char param_desc[KUNIT_PARAM_DESC_SIZE];
> struct kunit_case *test_case;
> + size_t num_suite_failures = 0;
> + size_t total_param_failures = 0, total_params = 0;
>
> kunit_print_subtest_start(suite);
>
> kunit_suite_for_each_test_case(suite, test_case) {
> struct kunit test = { .param_value = NULL, .param_index = 0 };
> + size_t num_params = 0, num_failures = 0;
> bool test_success = true;
>
> if (test_case->generate_params) {
> @@ -385,13 +442,27 @@ int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite)
> test.param_value = test_case->generate_params(test.param_value, param_desc);
> test.param_index++;
> }
> +
> + if (!test.success)
> + num_failures++;
Completely tangential: I'm glad we're counting failures now.
As noted in previous discussions, we'd want to eventually do this anyways.
It would be good if this func (and eventually `insmod`) could return a
non-zero retcode on test failure so users don't have to necessarily
parse KTAP output.
> + num_params++;
> +
> } while (test.param_value);
>
> + kunit_print_test_stats(&test, num_failures, num_params);
> +
> kunit_print_ok_not_ok(&test, true, test_success,
> kunit_test_case_num(suite, test_case),
> test_case->name);
> +
> + if (!test_success)
> + num_suite_failures++;
> + total_params += num_params;
> + total_param_failures += num_failures;
> }
>
> + kunit_print_suite_stats(suite, num_suite_failures,
> + total_param_failures, total_params);
> kunit_print_subtest_end(suite);
>
> return 0;
> diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py
> index 6614ec4d0898..88ee2b2668ad 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py
> +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py
> @@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ def print_log(log):
> for m in log:
> print_with_timestamp(m)
>
> -TAP_ENTRIES = re.compile(r'^(TAP|[\s]*ok|[\s]*not ok|[\s]*[0-9]+\.\.[0-9]+|[\s]*#).*$')
> +TAP_ENTRIES = re.compile(r'^(TAP|[\s]*ok|[\s]*not ok|[\s]*[0-9]+\.\.[0-9]+|[\s]*# Subtest:).*$')
>
> def consume_non_diagnositic(lines: List[str]) -> None:
> while lines and not TAP_ENTRIES.match(lines[0]):
>
> base-commit: 5f6b99d0287de2c2d0b5e7abcb0092d553ad804a
> --
> 2.29.2.576.ga3fc446d84-goog
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists