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: <CAFd5g45bd3qG99D8KG=qHS0hQGoD=umTDuUnzoQ7t2BUOR=Evw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 28 Mar 2022 13:04:59 -0400
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
To:     Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
Cc:     Daniel Gutson <daniel.gutson@...ypsium.com>,
        David Gow <davidgow@...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>,
        Richard Hughes <hughsient@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v1] kunit: add support for kunit_suites that reference init code

On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 11:59 AM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 8:26 AM Daniel Gutson
> <daniel.gutson@...ypsium.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 2:56 PM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Hi folks, any update on this? I'm adding Richard Hughes since we
> > need this for fwupd/LVFS, so he can provide more context.
>
> v1 of the patch was posted here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20220311072859.2174624-1-brendanhiggins@google.com/
>
> It has the requisite Reviewed-by's and no one has complained about it.
> So we're now waiting for that to get picked up into Shuah's tree and
> into Linus' for 5.18 (possibly) or 5.19.

It'll probably be 5.19, but it should be applied to Shuah's kunit-next
branch end of this week begining of next and then you can use that as
a base if you wish.