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-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Yirz/hbo4K9zN9Ht@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 11 Mar 2022 15:02:22 +0800
From:   David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
To:     Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
Cc:     shuah@...nel.org, dlatypov@...gle.com,
        martin.fernandez@...ypsium.com, daniel.gutson@...ypsium.com,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, keescook@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v1] kunit: add support for kunit_suites that reference init
 code

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...

Anyway,

Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>

-- David

>  include/kunit/test.h | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h
> index b26400731c02..1878e585f6d3 100644
> --- a/include/kunit/test.h
> +++ b/include/kunit/test.h
> @@ -379,6 +379,27 @@ static inline int kunit_run_all_tests(void)
>  
>  #define kunit_test_suite(suite)	kunit_test_suites(&suite)
>  
> +/**
> + * kunit_test_init_suites() - used to register one or more &struct kunit_suite
> + *			      containing init functions or init data.
> + *
> + * @__suites: a statically allocated list of &struct kunit_suite.
> + *
> + * This functions identically as &kunit_test_suites() except that it suppresses
> + * modpost warnings for referencing functions marked __init or data marked
> + * __initdata; this is OK because currently KUnit only runs tests upon boot
> + * during the init phase or upon loading a module during the init phase.
> + *
> + * NOTE TO KUNIT DEVS: If we ever allow KUnit tests to be run after boot, these
> + * tests must be excluded.
> + */
> +#define kunit_test_init_suites(__suites...)				\
> +	__kunit_test_suites(CONCATENATE(__UNIQUE_ID(array), _probe),	\
> +			    CONCATENATE(__UNIQUE_ID(suites), _probe),	\
> +			    ##__suites)
> +
> +#define kunit_test_init_suite(suite)	kunit_test_init_suites(&suite)
> +
>  #define kunit_suite_for_each_test_case(suite, test_case)		\
>  	for (test_case = suite->test_cases; test_case->run_case; test_case++)
>  
> 
> base-commit: 330f4c53d3c2d8b11d86ec03a964b86dc81452f5
> -- 
> 2.35.1.723.g4982287a31-goog
> 

Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (4003 bytes)