linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] kunit: tool: add --kernel

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_qxrrC0S+jE=RW2WeTq3jgw-STnFFb8cG=gyE2Nj+2MxDLg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Jul 2021 09:09:27 -0700
From:   Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
To:     David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
Cc:     Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.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 v2] kunit: tool: add --kernel_args to allow setting module params

On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 11:14 PM David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 7:15 AM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > kunit.py currently does not make it possible for users to specify module
> > parameters (/kernel arguments more generally) unless one directly tweaks
> > the kunit.py code itself.
> >
> > This hasn't mattered much so far, but this would make it easier to port
> > existing tests that expose module parameters over to KUnit and/or let
> > current KUnit tests take advantage of them.
> >
> > Tested using an kunit internal parameter:
> > $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=lib/kunit \
> >     --kernel_args=kunit.filter_glob=kunit_status
> > ...
> > Testing complete. 2 tests run. 0 failed. 0 crashed. 0 skipped.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
>
> Thanks! This is probably overdue: while I still think we want to avoid
> this being necessary for most uses, it definitely was a gap in
> kunit_tool functionality.
>
> I tested this and it worked fine, but did cause several of the
> kunit_tool_tests to fail, largely due to there being changes to the
> arguments of run_kernel(). Those should just require the associated
> tests to be updated.

Oops, completely forgot about kunit_tool_test.py. Sent out a v3.
I also went and added a test case to make sure the flag can be
repeated and gets plumbed through properly.

>
> -- David