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:   Mon, 14 Feb 2022 18:39:25 -0800
From:   Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
To:     mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com
Cc:     brendanhiggins@...gle.com, davidgow@...gle.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
        linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] thunderbolt: test: get running under UML, add kunitconfig

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 10:41 AM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> These tests didn't work under the normal `kunit.py run` command since
> they require CONFIG_PCI=y, which could not be set on ARCH=um.
>
> Commit 68f5d3f3b654 ("um: add PCI over virtio emulation driver") lets us
> do so. To make it so people don't have to figure out how to do so, we
> add a drivers/thunderbolt/.kunitconfig.
>
> Can now run these tests using
> $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=drivers/thunderbolt
>
> Potentially controversial bits:
> 1. this .kunitconfig is UML-specific, can't do this for example
> $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --arch=x86_64 --kunitconfig=drivers/thunderbolt
> 2. this removes the manual call to __kunit_test_suites_init(), which
>    allowed us to control exactly when the tests got run.

kernel-test-robot points out something I had forgotten.
Doing this prevents us from being able to build this test as a module.

kunit_test_suites() defines an init_module() which conflicts with the
existing ones.

There's some relevant discussion about reworking how kunit modules
work here, https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/e5fa413ed59083ca63f3479d507b972380da0dcf.camel@codeconstruct.com.au/

So I think we have two options for this patch:
a) proceed, but disable building the test as a module for now (tristate => bool)
b) wait on this patch until kunit module support is refactored

Basically the question is: does this slightly easier way of running
the test seem worth losing the ability to test as a module in the
short-term?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists