linux-kernel - [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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20210611035725.1248874-1-davidgow@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Jun 2021 20:57:25 -0700
From:   David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
To:     Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
        Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@...il.com>,
        Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] kunit: Fix result propagation for parameterised tests

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.

Instead, just propagate the result after each parameter run.

Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
Fixes: fadb08e7c750 ("kunit: Support for Parameterized Testing")
---

This is fixing quite a serious bug where some test suites would appear
to succeed even if some of their component tests failed. It'd be nice to
get this into kunit-fixes ASAP.

(This will require a rework of some of the skip tests work, for which
I'll send out a new version soon.)

Cheers,
-- David

 lib/kunit/test.c | 7 +++----
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/kunit/test.c b/lib/kunit/test.c
index 2f6cc0123232..17973a4a44c2 100644
--- a/lib/kunit/test.c
+++ b/lib/kunit/test.c
@@ -376,7 +376,7 @@ static void kunit_run_case_catch_errors(struct kunit_suite *suite,
 	context.test_case = test_case;
 	kunit_try_catch_run(try_catch, &context);
 
-	test_case->success = test->success;
+	test_case->success &= test->success;
 }
 
 int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite)
@@ -388,7 +388,7 @@ int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite)
 
 	kunit_suite_for_each_test_case(suite, test_case) {
 		struct kunit test = { .param_value = NULL, .param_index = 0 };
-		bool test_success = true;
+		test_case->success = true;
 
 		if (test_case->generate_params) {
 			/* Get initial param. */
@@ -398,7 +398,6 @@ int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite)
 
 		do {
 			kunit_run_case_catch_errors(suite, test_case, &test);
-			test_success &= test_case->success;
 
 			if (test_case->generate_params) {
 				if (param_desc[0] == '\0') {
@@ -420,7 +419,7 @@ int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite)
 			}
 		} while (test.param_value);
 
-		kunit_print_ok_not_ok(&test, true, test_success,
+		kunit_print_ok_not_ok(&test, true, test_case->success,
 				      kunit_test_case_num(suite, test_case),
 				      test_case->name);
 	}
-- 
2.32.0.272.g935e593368-goog