linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v1] kunit: add support for kunit

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 11 Mar 2022 11:56:20 -0600
From:   Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
To:     Daniel Gutson <daniel.gutson@...ypsium.com>
Cc:     David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>, shuah@...nel.org,
        Martin Fernandez <martin.fernandez@...ypsium.com>,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v1] kunit: add support for kunit_suites that reference init code

On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 4:14 AM Daniel Gutson
<daniel.gutson@...ypsium.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> El vie., 11 mar. 2022 4:02 a. m., David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com> escribió:
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 01:02:10PM -0800, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>> > Add support for a new kind of kunit_suite registration macro called
>> > kunit_test_init_suite(); this new registration macro allows the
>> > registration of kunit_suites that reference functions marked __init and
>> > data marked __initdata.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
>> > ---
>> >
>> > This patch is in response to a KUnit user issue[1] in which the user was
>> > attempting to test some init functions; although this is a functional
>> > solution as long as KUnit tests only run during the init phase, we will
>> > need to do more work if we ever allow tests to run after the init phase
>> > is over; it is for this reason that this patch adds a new registration
>> > macro rather than simply modifying the existing macros.
>> >
>> > [1] https://groups.google.com/g/kunit-dev/c/XDjieRHEneg/m/D0rFCwVABgAJ
>> >
>> > ---
>>
>> I'm a little concerned that this is just removing the warnings, but do
>> agree that this is safe enough for the moment. At least the information
>> about which tests need __init is preserved by the use of a different
>> macro.
>>
>> I guess one day we'll need a second list of 'init' tests or something...
>
>
> Hi, could you please detail about this? Why a second list?
>

I assume this is referring to a future where we want to run tests
_after_ the init phase.
In that case, we'd need to be able to separately register tests that
run during and those that run after.
(Or we could have one list and just tag each suite as init/post-init.
If we ever had >2 "phases" where we run tests, this might be the more
scalable option)

Is it likely we'd have tests run after?
Not in the near future, I don't think. But it could be asked for.

For context, here's where built-in KUnit tests currently run:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.17-rc7/source/init/main.c#L1615
That'd probably become kunit_run_init_tests() and then we'd have
another kunit_run_post_init_tests() called later, or something.