| 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: Tue, 11 Jan 2022 10:42:06 -0800
From: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
To: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
Cc: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...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 Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 10:51 PM David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 6:33 AM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 2:21 PM Brendan Higgins
> > <brendanhiggins@...gle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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:
> >
> > So do we want to try and pick a different name from
> > kunit_fail_assertion() to avoid confusion with the macro?
> > That's partly why I went with past tense.
> > Perhaps: "kunit_do_assertion() => kunit_do_failed_assertion()" instead?
>
> I'm not particularly picky about the name personally. But if I had to
> join the bikeshedding, I'd probably go with kunit_assertion_fail() or
> similar (kunit_assertion_failed works too, past-tense-wise.)
>
> But kunit_do_fail{,ed}_assertion() would work too.
I've gone ahead and locally renamed it to kunit_do_failed_assertion().
Talking offline, Brendan seemed ok with it, so we have 2 votes of
"it's good enough".
>
>
> >
> > Tangent: we have some similar confusing names, e.g. KUNIT_ASSERTION is
> > both the name of a macro and an enum (kunit_assert_type), and those
> > have the exact same case.
> >
> > >
> > > 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
> > > >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists