[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3bc67108-9f4a-4cd7-619d-d61816625e1a@canonical.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2022 18:43:05 -0800
From: John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>
To: Rae Moar <rmoar@...gle.com>, brendanhiggins@...gle.com,
davidgow@...gle.com, dlatypov@...gle.com
Cc: skhan@...uxfoundation.org, tales.aparecida@...il.com,
kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, apparmor@...ts.ubuntu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] kunit: add macro to allow conditionally exposing
static symbols to tests
On 12/6/22 17:40, Rae Moar wrote:
> Currently in order to test a static function, tests must be included in the
> same translation unit as the function. However, this can cause issues with
> including implementation and test code in the same file. As an alternative,
> the first patch in this series creates a macro that will set a function to
> be static or not depending on whether CONFIG_KUNIT is enabled. This allows
> the function to be visible during testing and static otherwise.
>
> As an example, the current status quo to test static functions is:
>
> === test.c ===
>
> static void test_case(struct kunit *test)
> {
> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, my_func_to_test(), 2);
> }
>
> Then the tests are included in the implementation file as a workaround to
> the issue of testing static functions:
>
> === implementation.c ===
>
> static int my_func_to_test() {...}
> ...
> #include "test.c"
>
> Instead, the function could be defined with this new macro:
>
> === implementation.c ===
>
> VISIBLE_IF_KUNIT int my_func_to_test() {...}
>
> The first patch also creates a macro that will export a symbol into a kunit
> testing namespace only if CONFIG_KUNIT is enabled. This follows the logic
> above and allows symbols to be conditionally exported based on the testing
> status.
>
> The second patch in the series updates the policy_unpack test in AppArmor
> to show an example of how to use both of these macros in order to address
> the issue of testing static functions. Additionally, the patch allows the
> policy_unpack test to be built as a module.
>
> Changes since v2:
> - Add mention of namespacing symbols to the commit message of the
> second patch.
> - Change module name in the second patch from policy_unpack_test to
> apparmor_policy_unpack_test.
>
> Changes since v1:
> - Changed the namespace of exported symbols for the apparmor
> policy_unpack_test by adding the aa_ prefix.
> - Separated the documentation comments for macros in
> include/kunit/visibility.h.
> - Changed copyright date and author for include/kunit/visibility.h.
>
> Rae Moar (2):
> kunit: add macro to allow conditionally exposing static symbols to
> tests
> apparmor: test: make static symbols visible during kunit testing
>
> include/kunit/visibility.h | 33 +++
> security/apparmor/Kconfig | 4 +-
> security/apparmor/Makefile | 3 +
> security/apparmor/include/policy_unpack.h | 50 +++++
> security/apparmor/policy_unpack.c | 238 ++++++++++------------
> security/apparmor/policy_unpack_test.c | 69 ++++---
> 6 files changed, 229 insertions(+), 168 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 include/kunit/visibility.h
>
>
> base-commit: 0f08f3e2a0186dfb8e33cb46105228eb18448a0e
thanks Rae,
looks good to me, David unless you tell me otherwise I assume this is
still going in via the kselftest/kunit tree.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists