linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kunit: Fix result propagation for parameterised tests

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: <CAFd5g44hC9XM2EcphwTNF5Vcz6v3kZg-ZFJwyj610ty6688OSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 11 Jun 2021 13:26:08 -0700
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
To:     David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
Cc:     Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@...il.com>,
        Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        KUnit Development <kunit-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kunit: Fix result propagation for parameterised tests

On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 8:57 PM David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> When one parameter of a parameterised test failed, its failure would be
> propagated to the overall test, but not to the suite result (unless it
> was the last parameter).
>
> This is because test_case->success was being reset to the test->success
> result after each parameter was used, so a failing test's result would
> be overwritten by a non-failing result. The overall test result was
> handled in a third variable, test_result, but this was disacarded after
> the status line was printed.

nit: s/disacarded/discarded/g

> Instead, just propagate the result after each parameter run.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
> Fixes: fadb08e7c750 ("kunit: Support for Parameterized Testing")

I tried to reproduce the problem described and was unable to. Anyway,
from the code it definitely looks like there is a bug like you
describe. And it definitely looks like your change should fix it.

Anyway, I tried testing your fix, but given I was unable to reproduce
the failure, I am not super confident in my testing. Still,

Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>