linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kfence: test: use 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:   Thu, 23 Sep 2021 19:58:32 +0200
From:   Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
To:     David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Aleksandr Nogikh <nogikh@...gle.com>,
        Taras Madan <tarasmadan@...gle.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kfence: test: use kunit_skip() to skip tests

On Thu, 23 Sept 2021 at 19:39, David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 2:26 AM Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > Use the new kunit_skip() to skip tests if requirements were not met. It
> > makes it easier to see in KUnit's summary if there were skipped tests.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
> > ---
>
> Thanks: I'm glad these features are proving useful. I've tested these
> under qemu, and it works pretty well.
>
> Certainly from the KUnit point of view, this is:
> Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>

Thanks!

> (A couple of unrelated complaints about the kfence tests are that
> TRACEPOINTS isn't selected by default, and that the manual
> registering/unregistering of the tracepoints does break some of the
> kunit tooling when several tests are built-in. That's something that
> exists independently of this patch, though, and possibly requires some
> KUnit changes to be fixed cleanly (kfence isn't the only thing to do
> this). So not something to hold up this patch.)

I think there was a reason we wanted it to "depends on TRACEPOINTS".
If it were to select it, then if you do a CONFIG_KUNIT_ALL_TESTS=y,
and also have KFENCE on, you'll always select tracepoints. In certain
situations this may not be wanted. If we didn't have
CONFIG_KUNIT_ALL_TESTS, then certainly, auto-selecting TRACEPOINTS
would be ok.

If you can live with that, we can of course switch it to do "select
TRACEPOINTS".

On a whole I err on the side of fewer auto-selected Kconfig options.

Thanks,
-- Marco