linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] thunderbolt: test: get running under UML, add kunitconfig

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: <YgtLFwORwGggQ7M2@lahna>
Date:   Tue, 15 Feb 2022 08:41:27 +0200
From:   Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.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

Hi Daniel,

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 06:39:25PM -0800, Daniel Latypov wrote:
> 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?

I would like to keep the module option available.

For me, I can just continue running this under QEMU for now so let's
wait until the reworking has been done. Thanks for looking into this,
though! :)