linux-kernel - Re: RFC - kernel test result specification (KTAP)

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: <CAFd5g44x9i2KfuJTfRpd6doqsLEbEZS0Gj=e4DvPU8Z-L4ga1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 11 Aug 2021 13:53:24 -0700
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
To:     Rae Moar <rmoar@...gle.com>
Cc:     David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>, Tim.Bird@...y.com,
        shuah@...nel.org, Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>,
        kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RFC - kernel test result specification (KTAP)

On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 4:25 PM Rae Moar <rmoar@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> We are looking to further standardise the output format used by kernel
> test frameworks like kselftest and KUnit. Thus far we have used the
> TAP (Test Anything Protocol) specification, but it has been extended
> in many different ways, so we would like to agree on a common "Kernel
> TAP" (KTAP) format to resolve these differences. Thus, below is a
> draft of a specification of KTAP. Note that this specification is
> largely based on the current format of test results for KUnit tests.
>
> Additionally, this specification was heavily inspired by the KTAP
> specification draft by Tim Bird
> (https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/CY4PR13MB1175B804E31E502221BC8163FD830@CY4PR13MB1175.namprd13.prod.outlook.com/T/).
> However, there are some notable differences to his specification. One
> such difference is the format of nested tests is more fully specified
> in the following specification. However, they are specified in a way
> which may not be compatible with many kselftest nested tests.

Thanks for putting this together, Rae! I would definitely like to see
us moving forward with standardizing fully on the KTAP spec.

I am surprised to not yet see any comments here.

I was thinking that this might make a good BoF topic at LPC, but I
guess that depends on how interested people are in this topic.