| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2021 18:09:48 -0300
From: Isabella B do Amaral <isabellabdoamaral@....br>
To: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Enzo Ferreira <ferreiraenzoa@...il.com>,
Augusto Durães Camargo
<augusto.duraes33@...il.com>,
Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
KUnit Development <kunit-dev@...glegroups.com>,
~lkcamp/patches@...ts.sr.ht,
Rodrigo Siqueira <rodrigosiqueiramelo@...il.com>,
kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] test_hash.c: refactor into kunit
Hi, David,
On Sat, Oct 2, 2021 at 4:22 AM David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 6:33 AM Isabella Basso <isabellabdoamaral@....br> wrote:
> >
> > Use KUnit framework to make tests more easily integrable with CIs. Even
> > though these tests are not yet properly written as unit tests this
> > change should help in debugging.
> >
> > Also remove kernel messages (i.e. through pr_info) as KUnit handles all
> > debugging output and let it handle module init and exit details.
> >
> > Changes since v1:
> > - As suggested by David Gow:
> > 1. Keep module support.
> > 2. Reword commit message.
> > - As reported by the kernel test bot:
> > 1. Fix compilation for m68k and parisc architectures.
> >
>
> It might be worth moving the changelog under the "---" here, so that
> it's not a part of the final commit message.
>
> > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
> > Tested-by: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
> > Co-developed-by: Augusto Durães Camargo <augusto.duraes33@...il.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Augusto Durães Camargo <augusto.duraes33@...il.com>
> > Co-developed-by: Enzo Ferreira <ferreiraenzoa@...il.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Enzo Ferreira <ferreiraenzoa@...il.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Isabella Basso <isabellabdoamaral@....br>
> > ---
>
> I went through this in a little more detail, and I'm happy with it.
> It'd still be nice if someone with more knowledge of the hashing code
> looked over it, but since George's email bounced, I'm happy to give
> this my reviewed-by.
>
> There are a few minor comments below (and above, I guess), which would
> be worth doing as part of a v3.
>
> Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
>
> Thanks,
> -- David
>
> > lib/Kconfig.debug | 28 ++++---
> > lib/Makefile | 2 +-
> > lib/test_hash.c | 187 ++++++++++++++--------------------------------
> > 3 files changed, 78 insertions(+), 139 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug
> > index eb6c4daf5fcb..04eec87c2964 100644
> > --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug
> > +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug
> > @@ -2204,15 +2204,6 @@ config TEST_RHASHTABLE
> >
> > If unsure, say N.
> >
> > -config TEST_HASH
> > - tristate "Perform selftest on hash functions"
> > - help
> > - Enable this option to test the kernel's integer (<linux/hash.h>), and
> > - string (<linux/stringhash.h>) hash functions on boot (or module load).
> > -
> > - This is intended to help people writing architecture-specific
> > - optimized versions. If unsure, say N.
> > -
> > config TEST_SIPHASH
> > tristate "Perform selftest on siphash functions"
> > help
> > @@ -2361,6 +2352,25 @@ config BITFIELD_KUNIT
> >
> > If unsure, say N.
> >
> > +config HASH_KUNIT_TEST
> > + tristate "KUnit Test for integer hash functions" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
> > + depends on KUNIT
> > + default KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
> > + help
> > + Enable this option to test the kernel's string (<linux/stringhash.h>), and
> > + integer (<linux/hash.h>) hash functions on boot.
> > +
> > + KUnit tests run during boot and output the results to the debug log
> > + in TAP format (https://testanything.org/). Only useful for kernel devs
> > + running the KUnit test harness, and not intended for inclusion into a
> > + production build.
> > +
> > + For more information on KUnit and unit tests in general please refer
> > + to the KUnit documentation in Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/.
> > +
> > + This is intended to help people writing architecture-specific
> > + optimized versions. If unsure, say N.
> > +
> > config RESOURCE_KUNIT_TEST
> > tristate "KUnit test for resource API"
> > depends on KUNIT
> > diff --git a/lib/Makefile b/lib/Makefile
> > index c2e81d0eb31c..0bc336d9d036 100644
> > --- a/lib/Makefile
> > +++ b/lib/Makefile
> > @@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_BITOPS) += test_bitops.o
> > CFLAGS_test_bitops.o += -Werror
> > obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_SYSCTL) += test_sysctl.o
> > obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_SIPHASH) += test_siphash.o
> > -obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_HASH) += test_hash.o
> > +obj-$(CONFIG_HASH_KUNIT_TEST) += test_hash.o
> > obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_IDA) += test_ida.o
> > obj-$(CONFIG_KASAN_KUNIT_TEST) += test_kasan.o
> > CFLAGS_test_kasan.o += -fno-builtin
> > diff --git a/lib/test_hash.c b/lib/test_hash.c
> > index db9dd18b4e8b..9cb8b1d2ab06 100644
> > --- a/lib/test_hash.c
> > +++ b/lib/test_hash.c
> > @@ -14,14 +14,12 @@
> > * and hash_64().
> > */
> >
> > -#define pr_fmt(fmt) KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt "\n"
> > -
> > #include <linux/compiler.h>
> > #include <linux/types.h>
> > #include <linux/module.h>
> > #include <linux/hash.h>
> > #include <linux/stringhash.h>
> > -#include <linux/printk.h>
> > +#include <kunit/test.h>
> >
> > /* 32-bit XORSHIFT generator. Seed must not be zero. */
> > static u32 __init __attribute_const__
> > @@ -66,40 +64,32 @@ struct test_hash_params {
> > };
> >
> > #ifdef HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32
> > -static bool __init
> > -test_int__hash_32(struct test_hash_params *params)
> > +static void __init
>
> Let's get rid of the __init bits here: it's possible KUnit tests will
> execute after kernel and/or module initialisation.
That makes sense! I thought those were necessary for some reason, my bad.
>
> > +test_int__hash_32(struct kunit *test, struct test_hash_params *params)
> > {
> > params->hash_or[1][0] |= params->h2 = __hash_32_generic(params->h0);
> > #if HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32 == 1
> > - if (params->h1 != params->h2) {
> > - pr_err("__hash_32(%#x) = %#x != __hash_32_generic() = %#x",
> > - params->h0, params->h1, params->h2);
> > - return false;
> > - }
> > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, params->h1, params->h2,
> > + "__hash_32(%#x) = %#x != __hash_32_generic() = %#x",
> > + params->h0, params->h1, params->h2);
> > #endif
> > - return true;
> > }
> > #endif
> >
> > #ifdef HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64
> > -static bool __init
> > -test_int_hash_64(struct test_hash_params *params, u32 const *m, int *k)
> > +static void __init
>
> Ditto for all other functions in this file: remove the __init.
>
> > +test_int_hash_64(struct kunit *test, struct test_hash_params *params, u32 const *m, int *k)
> > {
> > params->h2 = hash_64_generic(*params->h64, *k);
> > #if HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64 == 1
> > - if (params->h1 != params->h2) {
> > - pr_err("hash_64(%#llx, %d) = %#x != hash_64_generic() = %#x",
> > - *params->h64, *k, params->h1, params->h2);
> > - return false;
> > - }
> > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, params->h1, params->h2,
> > + "hash_64(%#llx, %d) = %#x != hash_64_generic() = %#x",
> > + *params->h64, *k, params->h1, params->h2);
> > #else
> > - if (params->h2 > *m) {
> > - pr_err("hash_64_generic(%#llx, %d) = %#x > %#x",
> > - *params->h64, *k, params->h1, *m);
> > - return false;
> > - }
> > + KUNIT_EXPECT_LE_MSG(test, params->h1, params->h2,
> > + "hash_64_generic(%#llx, %d) = %#x > %#x",
> > + *params->h64, *k, params->h1, *m);
> > #endif
> > - return true;
> > }
> > #endif
> >
> > @@ -112,8 +102,8 @@ test_int_hash_64(struct test_hash_params *params, u32 const *m, int *k)
> > * inline, the code being tested is actually in the module, and you can
> > * recompile and re-test the module without rebooting.
> > */
> > -static bool __init
> > -test_int_hash(unsigned long long h64, u32 hash_or[2][33])
> > +static void __init
> > +test_int_hash(struct kunit *test, unsigned long long h64, u32 hash_or[2][33])
> > {
> > int k;
> > struct test_hash_params params = { &h64, (u32)h64, 0, 0, hash_or };
> > @@ -121,8 +111,7 @@ test_int_hash(unsigned long long h64, u32 hash_or[2][33])
> > /* Test __hash32 */
> > hash_or[0][0] |= params.h1 = __hash_32(params.h0);
> > #ifdef HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32
> > - if (!test_int__hash_32(¶ms))
> > - return false;
> > + test_int__hash_32(test, ¶ms);
> > #endif
> >
> > /* Test k = 1..32 bits */
> > @@ -131,29 +120,24 @@ test_int_hash(unsigned long long h64, u32 hash_or[2][33])
> >
> > /* Test hash_32 */
> > hash_or[0][k] |= params.h1 = hash_32(params.h0, k);
> > - if (params.h1 > m) {
> > - pr_err("hash_32(%#x, %d) = %#x > %#x", params.h0, k, params.h1, m);
> > - return false;
> > - }
> > + KUNIT_EXPECT_LE_MSG(test, params.h1, m,
> > + "hash_32(%#x, %d) = %#x > %#x",
> > + params.h0, k, params.h1, m);
> >
> > /* Test hash_64 */
> > hash_or[1][k] |= params.h1 = hash_64(h64, k);
> > - if (params.h1 > m) {
> > - pr_err("hash_64(%#llx, %d) = %#x > %#x", h64, k, params.h1, m);
> > - return false;
> > - }
> > + KUNIT_EXPECT_LE_MSG(test, params.h1, m,
> > + "hash_64(%#llx, %d) = %#x > %#x",
> > + h64, k, params.h1, m);
> > #ifdef HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64
> > - if (!test_int_hash_64(¶ms, &m, &k))
> > - return false;
> > + test_int_hash_64(test, ¶ms, &m, &k);
> > #endif
> > }
> > -
> > - return true;
> > }
> >
> > #define SIZE 256 /* Run time is cubic in SIZE */
> >
> > -static int __init test_string_or(void)
> > +static void __init test_string_or(struct kunit *test)
> > {
> > char buf[SIZE+1];
> > u32 string_or = 0;
> > @@ -173,20 +157,15 @@ static int __init test_string_or(void)
> > } /* j */
> >
> > /* The OR of all the hash values should cover all the bits */
> > - if (~string_or) {
> > - pr_err("OR of all string hash results = %#x != %#x",
> > - string_or, -1u);
> > - return -EINVAL;
> > - }
> > -
> > - return 0;
> > + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, ~string_or,
> > + "OR of all string hash results = %#x != %#x",
> > + string_or, -1u);
>
> It might be worth using KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG() instead of
> EXPECT_FALSE(), as the real goal of this is to check if all bits are
> set.
>
> This'd look something like:
> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, string_or, -1u, "OR of all string hash
> results = %#x != %#x", string_or, -1u);
That makes a lot of sense to me. Thanks for the suggestion :)
>
> If instead we checked if string_or == -1u, I think it'd be clearer and
> match the message better. (In fact, I think you could get away with
> removing the message and using the non-_MSG variants if you really
> wanted, though the extra text describing it as the OR of all string
> results is better.)
I like the text as well, as these tests are not really well separated I think
it makes sense keeping them.
>
> > }
> >
> > -static int __init test_hash_or(void)
> > +static void __init test_hash_or(struct kunit *test)
> > {
> > char buf[SIZE+1];
> > u32 hash_or[2][33] = { { 0, } };
> > - unsigned tests = 0;
> > unsigned long long h64 = 0;
> > int i, j;
> >
> > @@ -201,39 +180,27 @@ static int __init test_hash_or(void)
> > u32 h0 = full_name_hash(buf+i, buf+i, j-i);
> >
> > /* Check that hashlen_string gets the length right */
> > - if (hashlen_len(hashlen) != j-i) {
> > - pr_err("hashlen_string(%d..%d) returned length"
> > - " %u, expected %d",
> > - i, j, hashlen_len(hashlen), j-i);
> > - return -EINVAL;
> > - }
> > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, hashlen_len(hashlen), j-i,
> > + "hashlen_string(%d..%d) returned length %u, expected %d",
> > + i, j, hashlen_len(hashlen), j-i);
> > /* Check that the hashes match */
> > - if (hashlen_hash(hashlen) != h0) {
> > - pr_err("hashlen_string(%d..%d) = %08x != "
> > - "full_name_hash() = %08x",
> > - i, j, hashlen_hash(hashlen), h0);
> > - return -EINVAL;
> > - }
> > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, hashlen_hash(hashlen), h0,
> > + "hashlen_string(%d..%d) = %08x != full_name_hash() = %08x",
> > + i, j, hashlen_hash(hashlen), h0);
> >
> > h64 = h64 << 32 | h0; /* For use with hash_64 */
> > - if (!test_int_hash(h64, hash_or))
> > - return -EINVAL;
> > - tests++;
> > + test_int_hash(test, h64, hash_or);
> > } /* i */
> > } /* j */
> >
> > - if (~hash_or[0][0]) {
> > - pr_err("OR of all __hash_32 results = %#x != %#x",
> > - hash_or[0][0], -1u);
> > - return -EINVAL;
> > - }
> > + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, ~hash_or[0][0],
>
> As above, maybe KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG() instead. (And ditto for all
> similar checks against ~hash_or[...])?
>
>
> > + "OR of all __hash_32 results = %#x != %#x",
> > + hash_or[0][0], -1u);
> > #ifdef HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32
> > #if HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32 != 1 /* Test is pointless if results match */
> > - if (~hash_or[1][0]) {
> > - pr_err("OR of all __hash_32_generic results = %#x != %#x",
> > - hash_or[1][0], -1u);
> > - return -EINVAL;
> > - }
> > + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, ~hash_or[1][0],
> > + "OR of all __hash_32_generic results = %#x != %#x",
> > + hash_or[1][0], -1u);
> > #endif
> > #endif
> >
> > @@ -241,65 +208,27 @@ static int __init test_hash_or(void)
> > for (i = 1; i <= 32; i++) {
> > u32 const m = ((u32)2 << (i-1)) - 1; /* Low i bits set */
> >
> > - if (hash_or[0][i] != m) {
> > - pr_err("OR of all hash_32(%d) results = %#x "
> > - "(%#x expected)", i, hash_or[0][i], m);
> > - return -EINVAL;
> > - }
> > - if (hash_or[1][i] != m) {
> > - pr_err("OR of all hash_64(%d) results = %#x "
> > - "(%#x expected)", i, hash_or[1][i], m);
> > - return -EINVAL;
> > - }
> > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, hash_or[0][i], m,
> > + "OR of all hash_32(%d) results = %#x (%#x expected)",
> > + i, hash_or[0][i], m);
> > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, hash_or[1][i], m,
> > + "OR of all hash_64(%d) results = %#x (%#x expected)",
> > + i, hash_or[1][i], m);
> > }
> > -
> > - pr_notice("%u tests passed.", tests);
> > -
> > - return 0;
> > -}
> > -
> > -static void __init notice_skipped_tests(void)
> > -{
> > - /* Issue notices about skipped tests. */
> > -#ifdef HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32
> > -#if HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32 != 1
> > - pr_info("__hash_32() is arch-specific; not compared to generic.");
> > -#endif
> > -#else
> > - pr_info("__hash_32() has no arch implementation to test.");
> > -#endif
> > -#ifdef HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64
> > -#if HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64 != 1
> > - pr_info("hash_64() is arch-specific; not compared to generic.");
> > -#endif
> > -#else
> > - pr_info("hash_64() has no arch implementation to test.");
> > -#endif
> > }
> >
> > -static int __init
> > -test_hash_init(void)
> > -{
> > - int ret;
> > -
> > - ret = test_string_or();
> > - if (ret < 0)
> > - return ret;
> > -
> > - ret = test_hash_or();
> > - if (ret < 0)
> > - return ret;
> > -
> > - notice_skipped_tests();
> > +static struct kunit_case hash_test_cases[] __refdata = {
> > + KUNIT_CASE(test_string_or),
> > + KUNIT_CASE(test_hash_or),
> > + {}
> > +};
> >
> > - return ret;
> > -}
> > +static struct kunit_suite hash_test_suite = {
> > + .name = "hash",
> > + .test_cases = hash_test_cases,
> > +};
> >
> > -static void __exit test_hash_exit(void)
> > -{
> > -}
> >
> > -module_init(test_hash_init); /* Does everything */
> > -module_exit(test_hash_exit); /* Does nothing */
> > +kunit_test_suite(hash_test_suite);
> >
> > MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> > --
> > 2.33.0
> >
Again, thanks for your review!
Cheers,
--
Isabella Basso
Powered by blists - more mailing lists