linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kunit: tool: make --kunitconfig accept dirs, add lib/kunit fragment

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: <CAGS_qxqoXhZo6hV_1BsqrpXBJTuBhXERUnW75U6aCtS382aNjg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 2 Apr 2021 12:27:53 -0700
From:   Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
To:     Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
        David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>,
        KUnit Development <kunit-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kunit: tool: make --kunitconfig accept dirs, add
 lib/kunit fragment

On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 11:00 AM Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On 4/2/21 3:32 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> >> TL;DR
> >> $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=lib/kunit
> >>
> >> Per suggestion from Ted [1], we can reduce the amount of typing by
> >> assuming a convention that these files are named '.kunitconfig'.
> >>
> >> In the case of [1], we now have
> >> $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=fs/ext4
> >>
> >> Also add in such a fragment for kunit itself so we can give that as an
> >> example more close to home (and thus less likely to be accidentally
> >> broken).
> >>
> >> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4/YCNF4yP1dB97zzwD@mit.edu/
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
> >
>
> Should this be captured in  documentation. Especially since this
> is file is .* file.
>
> Do you want to include doc in this patch? Might be better that way.

It definitely should be documented, yes.
The only real example hadn't landed yet when I sent this patch
(fs/ext4/.kunitconfig was going in through the ext4 tree), but now
it's in linus/master.

There's still some uncertainties about what best practices for this
feature should be, i.e.
* how granular should these be?
* how should configs in parent dirs be handled? Should they be
supersets of all the subdirs?
    * E.g. should fs/.kunitconfig be a superset of
fs/ext4/.kunitconfig and any other hypothetical subdir configs?
    * Should we wait on saying "you should do this" until we have
"import" statements/other mechanisms to make this less manual?
* how should we handle non-UML tests, like the KASAN tests?
  * ideally, kunit.py run will eventually support running tests on x86
(using qemu)

If it's fine with you, I was hoping to come back and add a section to
kunit/start.rst when we've had some of those questions more figured
out.

>
> thanks,
> -- Shuah