linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] Documentation: kunit: add tips for 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAGS_qxrVmVK3sOuNR6AMu6-Xyw_wdd0MQD-YiFVXcD=bkTmr0A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 14 Apr 2021 15:22:48 -0700
From:   Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
To:     David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
Cc:     Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
        Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@...cle.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        KUnit Development <kunit-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Documentation: kunit: add tips for running KUnit

On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 9:22 PM David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 8:45 AM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > This is long overdue.
> >
> > There are several things that aren't nailed down (in-tree
> > .kunitconfig's), or partially broken (GCOV on UML), but having them
> > documented, warts and all, is better than having nothing.
> >
> > This covers a bunch of the more recent features
> > * kunit_filter_glob
> > * kunit.py run --kunitconfig
> > * slightly more detail on building tests as modules
> > * CONFIG_KUNIT_DEBUGFS
> >
> > By my count, the only headline features now not mentioned are the KASAN
> > integration and KernelCI json output support (kunit.py run --json).
> >
> > And then it also discusses how to get code coverage reports under UML
> > and non-UML since this is a question people have repeatedly asked.
> >
> > Non-UML coverage collection is no different from normal, but we should
> > probably explicitly call this out.
> >
> > As for UML, I was able to get it working again with two small hacks.*
> > E.g. with CONFIG_KUNIT=y && CONFIG_KUNIT_ALL_TESTS=y
> >   Overall coverage rate:
> >     lines......: 15.1% (18294 of 120776 lines)
> >     functions..: 16.8% (1860 of 11050 functions)
> >
> > Note: this doesn't document --alltests since this is not stable yet.
> > Hopefully being run more frequently as part of KernelCI will help...
> >
> > *Using gcc/gcov-6 and not using uml_abort() in os_dump_core().
> > I've documented these hacks in "Notes" but left TODOs for
> > brendanhiggins@...gle.com who tracked down the runtime issue in GCC.
> > To be clear: these are not issues specific to KUnit, but rather to UML.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
> > ---
>
> I'm very happy with this now: all my issues with the previous versions
> are addressed. I'm particularly excited to have code coverage
> documented somewhere.

I just realized I forgot to commit the updated wording you requested
wrt uml_abort() in the patch itself.
Sending a v4 now.

>
> Assuming Brendan's happy with the TODOs being there, I think this is
> ready to go.
>
> I also built this with Sphinx and gave it a quick look, and it all
> looks good there as well.
>
> Therefore, this is:
>
> Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
>
> Cheers,
> -- David