| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <YrVlWD5qJnr9OTik@bertie>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2022 02:18:48 -0500
From: Rebecca Mckeever <remckee0@...il.com>
To: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] memblock tests: add verbose output to memblock
tests
On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 09:40:30AM -0500, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 01:30:42AM -0500, Rebecca Mckeever wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 11:30:10PM -0500, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 04:29:07AM -0500, Rebecca Mckeever wrote:
> > > > Add and use functions for printing verbose testing output.
> > > >
> > > > If the Memblock simulator was compiled with VERBOSE=1:
> > > > prefix_push() appends the given string to a prefix string that will be
> > > > printed in the test functions.
> > > > prefix_pop() removes the last prefix from the prefix string.
> > > > prefix_reset() clears the prefix string.
> > > > test_fail() prints a message after a test fails containing the test
> > > > number of the failing test and the prefix.
> > > > test_pass() prints a message after a test passes containing its test
> > > > number and the prefix.
> > > > test_print() prints the given formatted output string.
> > > >
> > > > If the Memblock simulator was not compiled with VERBOSE=1, these
> > > > functions do nothing.
> > > >
> > > > Add the assert wrapper macros ASSERT_EQ(), ASSERT_NE(), and ASSERT_LT().
> > > > If the assert condition fails, these macros call test_fail() before
> > > > executing assert().
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Rebecca Mckeever <remckee0@...il.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > tools/testing/memblock/tests/alloc_api.c | 241 ++++++++----
> > > > .../memblock/tests/alloc_helpers_api.c | 135 +++++--
> > > > tools/testing/memblock/tests/alloc_nid_api.c | 371 ++++++++++++------
> > > > tools/testing/memblock/tests/basic_api.c | 365 ++++++++++++-----
> > > > tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c | 58 +++
> > > > tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.h | 54 +++
> > > > 6 files changed, 880 insertions(+), 344 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/alloc_api.c b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/alloc_api.c
> > > > index d1aa7e15c18d..96df033d4300 100644
> > > > --- a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/alloc_api.c
> > > > +++ b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/alloc_api.c
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > @@ -729,6 +820,12 @@ static int alloc_no_memory_check(void)
> > > >
> > > > int memblock_alloc_checks(void)
> > > > {
> > > > + static const char func_testing[] = "memblock_alloc";
> > > > +
> > > > + prefix_reset();
> > > > + prefix_push(func_testing);
> > > > + test_print("Running %s tests...\n", func_testing);
> > >
> > > Why not
> > >
> > > test_print("Running memblock_alloc tests...\n");
> > >
> > > ?
> > >
> > > (applies to other cases below)
> >
> > Both prefix_push() and test_print() are using that string, and I thought
> > it made sense to use a constant instead of hard coding the string in both
> > places. Is it better to hard code the string in this case?
>
> Oh, missed that.
> I'd drop static, it doesn't really matter here.
>
Will do.
> > > > +
> > > > reset_memblock_attributes();
> > > > dummy_physical_memory_init();
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/alloc_helpers_api.c b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/alloc_helpers_api.c
> > > > index 963a966db461..f6eaed540427 100644
> > > > --- a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/alloc_helpers_api.c
> > > > +++ b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/alloc_helpers_api.c
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > @@ -378,6 +423,12 @@ static int alloc_from_min_addr_cap_check(void)
> > > >
> > > > int memblock_alloc_helpers_checks(void)
> > > > {
> > > > + static const char func_testing[] = "memblock_alloc_from";
> > > > +
> > > > + prefix_reset();
> > > > + prefix_push(func_testing);
> > > > + test_print("Running %s tests...\n", func_testing);
> > > > +
> > > > reset_memblock_attributes();
> > > > dummy_physical_memory_init();
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/alloc_nid_api.c b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/alloc_nid_api.c
> > > > index 6390206e50e1..601f4a7ee30d 100644
> > > > --- a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/alloc_nid_api.c
> > > > +++ b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/alloc_nid_api.c
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > @@ -1150,6 +1263,12 @@ static int alloc_try_nid_low_max_check(void)
> > > >
> > > > int memblock_alloc_nid_checks(void)
> > > > {
> > > > + static const char func_testing[] = "memblock_alloc_try_nid";
> > > > +
> > > > + prefix_reset();
> > > > + prefix_push(func_testing);
> > > > + test_print("Running %s tests...\n", func_testing);
> > > > +
> > > > reset_memblock_attributes();
> > > > dummy_physical_memory_init();
> > > >
> > > > @@ -1170,5 +1289,7 @@ int memblock_alloc_nid_checks(void)
> > > >
> > > > dummy_physical_memory_cleanup();
> > > >
> > > > + prefix_pop();
> > > > +
> > > > return 0;
> > > > }
> > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/basic_api.c b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/basic_api.c
> > > > index a7bc180316d6..f223a9a57be7 100644
> > > > --- a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/basic_api.c
> > > > +++ b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/basic_api.c
> > > > @@ -4,21 +4,30 @@
> > > > #include "basic_api.h"
> > > >
> > > > #define EXPECTED_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS 128
> > > > +#define FUNC_ADD "memblock_add"
> > > > +#define FUNC_RESERVE "memblock_reserve"
> > > > +#define FUNC_REMOVE "memblock_remove"
> > > > +#define FUNC_FREE "memblock_free"
> > > >
> > > > static int memblock_initialization_check(void)
> > > > {
> > > > - assert(memblock.memory.regions);
> > > > - assert(memblock.memory.cnt == 1);
> > > > - assert(memblock.memory.max == EXPECTED_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS);
> > > > - assert(strcmp(memblock.memory.name, "memory") == 0);
> > > > + prefix_push(__func__);
> > > >
> > > > - assert(memblock.reserved.regions);
> > > > - assert(memblock.reserved.cnt == 1);
> > > > - assert(memblock.memory.max == EXPECTED_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS);
> > > > - assert(strcmp(memblock.reserved.name, "reserved") == 0);
> > > > + ASSERT_NE(memblock.memory.regions, NULL);
> > > > + ASSERT_EQ(memblock.memory.cnt, 1);
> > > > + ASSERT_EQ(memblock.memory.max, EXPECTED_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS);
> > > > + ASSERT_EQ(strcmp(memblock.memory.name, "memory"), 0);
> > > >
> > > > - assert(!memblock.bottom_up);
> > > > - assert(memblock.current_limit == MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ANYWHERE);
> > > > + ASSERT_NE(memblock.reserved.regions, NULL);
> > > > + ASSERT_EQ(memblock.reserved.cnt, 1);
> > > > + ASSERT_EQ(memblock.memory.max, EXPECTED_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS);
> > > > + ASSERT_EQ(strcmp(memblock.reserved.name, "reserved"), 0);
> > > > +
> > > > + ASSERT_EQ(memblock.bottom_up, false);
> > > > + ASSERT_EQ(memblock.current_limit, MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ANYWHERE);
> > > > +
> > > > + test_pass();
> > > > + prefix_pop();
> > > >
> > > > return 0;
> > > > }
> > > > @@ -40,14 +49,19 @@ static int memblock_add_simple_check(void)
> > > > .size = SZ_4M
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > + prefix_push(__func__);
> > > > +
> > > > reset_memblock_regions();
> > > > memblock_add(r.base, r.size);
> > > >
> > > > - assert(rgn->base == r.base);
> > > > - assert(rgn->size == r.size);
> > > > + ASSERT_EQ(rgn->base, r.base);
> > > > + ASSERT_EQ(rgn->size, r.size);
> > > > +
> > > > + ASSERT_EQ(memblock.memory.cnt, 1);
> > > > + ASSERT_EQ(memblock.memory.total_size, r.size);
> > > >
> > > > - assert(memblock.memory.cnt == 1);
> > > > - assert(memblock.memory.total_size == r.size);
> > > > + test_pass();
> > > > + prefix_pop();
> > > >
> > > > return 0;
> > > > }
> > > > @@ -69,18 +83,27 @@ static int memblock_add_node_simple_check(void)
> > > > .size = SZ_16M
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > + prefix_pop();
> > > > + prefix_push("memblock_add_node");
> > > > + prefix_push(__func__);
> > >
> > > I think there is no need to change the prefix from memblock_add to
> > > memblock_add_node here.
> > >
> > > ok 3 : memblock_add: memblock_add_node_simple_check: passed
> > >
> > > provides enough information.
> > >
> >
> > Will do.
> >
> > > > +
> > > > reset_memblock_regions();
> > > > memblock_add_node(r.base, r.size, 1, MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG);
> > > >
> > > > - assert(rgn->base == r.base);
> > > > - assert(rgn->size == r.size);
> > > > + ASSERT_EQ(rgn->base, r.base);
> > > > + ASSERT_EQ(rgn->size, r.size);
> > > > #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
> > > > - assert(rgn->nid == 1);
> > > > + ASSERT_EQ(rgn->nid, 1);
> > > > #endif
> > > > - assert(rgn->flags == MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG);
> > > > + ASSERT_EQ(rgn->flags, MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG);
> > > > +
> > > > + ASSERT_EQ(memblock.memory.cnt, 1);
> > > > + ASSERT_EQ(memblock.memory.total_size, r.size);
> > > >
> > > > - assert(memblock.memory.cnt == 1);
> > > > - assert(memblock.memory.total_size == r.size);
> > > > + test_pass();
> > > > + prefix_pop();
> > > > + prefix_pop();
> > > > + prefix_push(FUNC_ADD);
> > > >
> > > > return 0;
> > > > }
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sincerely yours,
> > > Mike.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Rebecca
>
> --
> Sincerely yours,
> Mike.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists