linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/6] kunit: move check if assertion passed into the macros

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: <CAFd5g45HcdzB_CTNRRpH8BFbBvG0nDS4_6VUj3Tqx8XOuVTNOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 10 Jan 2022 17:21:41 -0500
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
To:     Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
Cc:     davidgow@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        skhan@...uxfoundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] kunit: move check if assertion passed into the macros

On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 8:23 PM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> Currently the code always calls kunit_do_assertion() even though it does
> nothing when `pass` is true.
>
> This change moves the `if(!(pass))` check into the macro instead
> and renames the function to kunit_failed_assertion().
> I feel this a  bit easier to read and understand.
>
> This has the potential upside of avoiding a function call that does
> nothing most of the time (assuming your tests are passing) but comes
> with the downside of generating a bit more code and branches.
>
> This also means we don't have to initialize structs that we don't need,
> which will become a tiny bit more expensive if we switch over to using
> static variables to try and reduce stack usage. (There's runtime code
> to check if the variable has been initialized yet or not).
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>

Tiny nit, see below. Otherwise:

Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>

> ---
>  include/kunit/test.h | 20 ++++++++++----------
>  lib/kunit/test.c     | 13 ++++---------
>  2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h
> index b26400731c02..690a28dfc795 100644
> --- a/include/kunit/test.h
> +++ b/include/kunit/test.h
> @@ -770,18 +770,18 @@ void __printf(2, 3) kunit_log_append(char *log, const char *fmt, ...);
>   */
>  #define KUNIT_SUCCEED(test) do {} while (0)
>
> -void kunit_do_assertion(struct kunit *test,
> -                       struct kunit_assert *assert,
> -                       bool pass,
> -                       const char *fmt, ...);
> +void kunit_failed_assertion(struct kunit *test,
> +                           struct kunit_assert *assert,
> +                           const char *fmt, ...);

Tiny nit: I think this should be kunit_fail_assertion. I think
functions should be in the active tense, imperative mood since when
you call a function you are telling it to do something.

Also, do we need to worry about this getting confused with KUNIT_FAIL,
or KUNIT_FAIL_ASSERTION:

https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.16/source/include/kunit/test.h#L788

?

>  #define KUNIT_ASSERTION(test, pass, assert_class, INITIALIZER, fmt, ...) do {  \
> -       struct assert_class __assertion = INITIALIZER;                         \
> -       kunit_do_assertion(test,                                               \
> -                          &__assertion.assert,                                \
> -                          pass,                                               \
> -                          fmt,                                                \
> -                          ##__VA_ARGS__);                                     \
> +       if (!(pass)) {                                                         \
> +               struct assert_class __assertion = INITIALIZER;                 \
> +               kunit_failed_assertion(test,                                   \
> +                                      &__assertion.assert,                    \
> +                                      fmt,                                    \
> +                                      ##__VA_ARGS__);                         \
> +       }                                                                      \
>  } while (0)
>
>
> diff --git a/lib/kunit/test.c b/lib/kunit/test.c
> index c7ed4aabec04..5ad671745483 100644
> --- a/lib/kunit/test.c
> +++ b/lib/kunit/test.c
> @@ -275,16 +275,11 @@ static void __noreturn kunit_abort(struct kunit *test)
>         WARN_ONCE(true, "Throw could not abort from test!\n");
>  }
>
> -void kunit_do_assertion(struct kunit *test,
> -                       struct kunit_assert *assert,
> -                       bool pass,
> -                       const char *fmt, ...)
> +void kunit_failed_assertion(struct kunit *test,
> +                           struct kunit_assert *assert,
> +                           const char *fmt, ...)
>  {
>         va_list args;
> -
> -       if (pass)
> -               return;
> -
>         va_start(args, fmt);
>
>         assert->message.fmt = fmt;
> @@ -297,7 +292,7 @@ void kunit_do_assertion(struct kunit *test,
>         if (assert->type == KUNIT_ASSERTION)
>                 kunit_abort(test);
>  }
> -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kunit_do_assertion);
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kunit_failed_assertion);
>
>  void kunit_init_test(struct kunit *test, const char *name, char *log)
>  {
> --
> 2.34.1.575.g55b058a8bb-goog
>