linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] kunit: Add '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:   Wed, 26 May 2021 17:53:34 -0700
From:   Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
To:     Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
Cc:     shuah <shuah@...nel.org>, David Gow <davidgow@...gle.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>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] kunit: Add 'kunit_shutdown' option

On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 2:24 PM Brendan Higgins
<brendanhiggins@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> From: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
>
> Add a new kernel command-line option, 'kunit_shutdown', which allows the
> user to specify that the kernel poweroff, halt, or reboot after
> completing all KUnit tests; this is very handy for running KUnit tests
> on UML or a VM so that the UML/VM process exits cleanly immediately
> after running all tests without needing a special initramfs.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
> Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
> Tested-By: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>

Reviewed-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>

Looks good, one optional nit below.

Also, I tested this again on top of 5.13-r4 (7ac3a1c1ae51 ("Merge tag
'mtd/fixes-for-5.13-rc4' of
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mtd/linux"))

$ echo -e "\nCONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL=y\nCONFIG_DEBUG_INFO=y\nCONFIG_GCOV=y"
>> .kunit/.kunitconfig
$ run_kunit --make_options=CC=/usr/bin/gcc-6
$ <run coverage generation steps>
Overall coverage rate:
  lines......: 13.8% (17286 of 125320 lines)
  functions..: 15.8% (1790 of 11336 functions)

So coverage still seems to be fixed, no need to comment out the
uml_abort() anymore and this sidesteps whatever weird issue I started
running into these past few weeks.
So that's very exciting.

> ---
>  lib/kunit/executor.c                | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>  tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py |  2 +-
>  tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py |  2 +-
>  3 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/kunit/executor.c b/lib/kunit/executor.c
> index 15832ed446685..7db619624437c 100644
> --- a/lib/kunit/executor.c
> +++ b/lib/kunit/executor.c
> @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
>  // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>
> +#include <linux/reboot.h>
>  #include <kunit/test.h>
>  #include <linux/glob.h>
>  #include <linux/moduleparam.h>
> @@ -18,6 +19,9 @@ module_param(filter_glob, charp, 0);
>  MODULE_PARM_DESC(filter_glob,
>                 "Filter which KUnit test suites run at boot-time, e.g. list*");
>
> +static char *kunit_shutdown;
> +core_param(kunit_shutdown, kunit_shutdown, charp, 0644);
> +
>  static struct kunit_suite * const *
>  kunit_filter_subsuite(struct kunit_suite * const * const subsuite)
>  {
> @@ -82,6 +86,20 @@ static struct suite_set kunit_filter_suites(void)
>         return filtered;
>  }
>
> +static void kunit_handle_shutdown(void)
> +{
> +       if (!kunit_shutdown)
> +               return;
> +
> +       if (!strcmp(kunit_shutdown, "poweroff"))
> +               kernel_power_off();
> +       else if (!strcmp(kunit_shutdown, "halt"))
> +               kernel_halt();
> +       else if (!strcmp(kunit_shutdown, "reboot"))
> +               kernel_restart(NULL);

nit: should we complain about an unknown option here?

> +
> +}
> +
>  static void kunit_print_tap_header(struct suite_set *suite_set)
>  {
>         struct kunit_suite * const * const *suites, * const *subsuite;
> @@ -112,6 +130,8 @@ int kunit_run_all_tests(void)
>                 kfree(suite_set.start);
>         }
>
> +       kunit_handle_shutdown();
> +
>         return 0;
>  }
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py
> index 89a7d4024e878..dbbceaee12305 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py
> +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py
> @@ -208,7 +208,7 @@ class LinuxSourceTree(object):
>         def run_kernel(self, args=None, build_dir='', filter_glob='', timeout=None) -> Iterator[str]:
>                 if not args:
>                         args = []
> -               args.extend(['mem=1G', 'console=tty'])
> +               args.extend(['mem=1G', 'console=tty', 'kunit_shutdown=halt'])
>                 if filter_glob:
>                         args.append('kunit.filter_glob='+filter_glob)
>                 self._ops.linux_bin(args, timeout, build_dir)
> diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py
> index e8bcc139702e2..8d8d4d70b39dd 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py
> +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py
> @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ class TestStatus(Enum):
>
>  kunit_start_re = re.compile(r'TAP version [0-9]+$')
>  kunit_end_re = re.compile('(List of all partitions:|'
> -                         'Kernel panic - not syncing: VFS:)')
> +                         'Kernel panic - not syncing: VFS:|reboot: System halted)')
>
>  def isolate_kunit_output(kernel_output) -> Iterator[str]:
>         started = False
> --
> 2.31.1.818.g46aad6cb9e-goog
>