linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFd5g44nSfp=3A+VDCY6o-WzgDtnCw4NCChoXv_RKvmZc7Seog@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 8 Apr 2022 13:34:12 -0400
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
To:     Martin Fernandez <martin.fernandez@...ypsium.com>
Cc:     Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>, shuah@...nel.org,
        davidgow@...gle.com, dlatypov@...gle.com,
        daniel.gutson@...ypsium.com, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        keescook@...omium.org, jk@...econstruct.com.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] kunit: add support for kunit_suites that reference
 init code

On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 5:34 PM Martin Fernandez
<martin.fernandez@...ypsium.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/4/22, Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 6:37 PM Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Brendan,
> >>
> >> On 3/11/22 12:28 AM, 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>
> >> > Tested-by: Martin Fernandez <martin.fernandez@...ypsium.com>
> >> > Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> >> > Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
> >> > ---
> >> >
> >>
> >> I almost applied it ...
> >>
> >> > This is a follow-up to the RFC here[1].
> >> >
> >> > This patch is in response to a KUnit user issue[2] 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.
> >> >
> >> > Changes since last version:
> >> >   - I added more to the kunit_test_init_suites() kernel-doc comment
> >> >     detailing "how" the modpost warnings are suppressed in addition to
> >> >     the existing information regarding "why" it is OK for the modpost
> >> >     warnings to be suppressed.
> >> >
> >> > [1]
> >> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20220310210210.2124637-1-brendanhiggins@google.com/
> >> > [2] https://groups.google.com/g/kunit-dev/c/XDjieRHEneg/m/D0rFCwVABgAJ
> >> >
> >> > ---
> >> >   include/kunit/test.h | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> >   1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h
> >> > index b26400731c02..7f303a06bc97 100644
> >> > --- a/include/kunit/test.h
> >> > +++ b/include/kunit/test.h
> >> > @@ -379,6 +379,32 @@ 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.
> >> > + *
> >> > + * The only thing this macro does that's different from
> >> > kunit_test_suites is
> >> > + * that it suffixes the array and suite declarations it makes with
> >> > _probe;
> >> > + * modpost suppresses warnings about referencing init data for symbols
> >> > named in
> >> > + * this manner.
> >> > + */
> >> > +#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++)
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> The naming of the function and macro are rather confusing and can become
> >> error prone. Let's find better naming scheme.
> >
> > Yeah, I wasn't sure about the name. I didn't have any better ideas
> > initially though. Any suggestions?
> >
>
> What about kunit_test_init_section_suite?

Sounds fine to me. Shuah, does that sound OK to you?

> >> > base-commit: 330f4c53d3c2d8b11d86ec03a964b86dc81452f5
> >> >
> >>
> >> thanks,
> >> -- Shuah
> >