linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] lib/cpumask

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: <49f6eaa7e8586e4eba39d636ef034fc1626e3bc2.camel@svanheule.net>
Date:   Sun, 21 Aug 2022 15:13:50 +0200
From:   Sander Vanheule <sander@...nheule.net>
To:     Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>,
        David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
        Maíra Canal <mairacanal@...eup.net>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] lib/cpumask_kunit: log mask contents

On Sat, 2022-08-20 at 14:46 -0700, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 05:03:12PM +0200, Sander Vanheule wrote:
> > For extra context, log the contents of the masks under test.  This
> > should help with finding out why a certain test fails.
> > 
> > Link:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CABVgOSkPXBc-PWk1zBZRQ_Tt+Sz1ruFHBj3ixojymZF=Vi4tpQ@mail.gmail.com/
> > Suggested-by: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Sander Vanheule <sander@...nheule.net>
> > Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
> > ---
> >  lib/cpumask_kunit.c | 10 ++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/lib/cpumask_kunit.c b/lib/cpumask_kunit.c
> > index 4d353614d853..0f8059a5e93b 100644
> > --- a/lib/cpumask_kunit.c
> > +++ b/lib/cpumask_kunit.c
> > @@ -51,6 +51,10 @@
> >  static cpumask_t mask_empty;
> >  static cpumask_t mask_all;
> >  
> > +#define STR_MASK(m)                    #m
> > +#define TEST_CPUMASK_PRINT(test, mask) \
> > +       kunit_info(test, "%s = '%*pbl'\n", STR_MASK(mask), nr_cpumask_bits,
> > cpumask_bits(mask))
> > +
> >  static void test_cpumask_weight(struct kunit *test)
> >  {
> >         KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, cpumask_empty(&mask_empty));
> > @@ -103,6 +107,9 @@ static void test_cpumask_iterators_builtin(struct kunit
> > *test)
> >         /* Ensure the dynamic masks are stable while running the tests */
> >         cpu_hotplug_disable();
> >  
> > +       TEST_CPUMASK_PRINT(test, cpu_online_mask);
> > +       TEST_CPUMASK_PRINT(test, cpu_present_mask);
> > +
> >         EXPECT_FOR_EACH_CPU_BUILTIN_EQ(test, online);
> >         EXPECT_FOR_EACH_CPU_BUILTIN_EQ(test, present);
> >  
> > @@ -114,6 +121,9 @@ static int test_cpumask_init(struct kunit *test)
> >         cpumask_clear(&mask_empty);
> >         cpumask_setall(&mask_all);
> >  
> > +       TEST_CPUMASK_PRINT(test, &mask_all);
> > +       TEST_CPUMASK_PRINT(test, cpu_possible_mask);
> > +
> 
> It sort of breaks the rule of silence. Can you make this print conditional
> on a test failure? If everything is OK, who wants to look into details? 

I will change the macros to the _MSG versions, and log the mask there.

I implemented this with kunit_info() as David proposed. AFAICT I can't call 
kunit_info() only when the test fails, because the EXPECT_ macros don't return
any result.

Best,
Sander

> 
> >         return 0;
> >  }
> >  
> > -- 
> > 2.37.2