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: <b791c1ce-dd81-f864-dfe2-962ad5ac5d41@riseup.net>
Date:   Sun, 21 Aug 2022 11:02:07 -0300
From:   Maíra Canal <mairacanal@...eup.net>
To:     Sander Vanheule <sander@...nheule.net>,
        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,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] lib/cpumask_kunit: log mask contents



On 8/21/22 10:13, Sander Vanheule wrote:
> 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.

Maybe you can use KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG to print a more detailed error and
avoid printing the info when the test doesn't fail.

Best Regards,
- Maíra Canal

> 
> Best,
> Sander
> 
>>
>>>         return 0;
>>>  }
>>>  
>>> -- 
>>> 2.37.2
>