Date:   Mon, 13 Mar 2023 11:02:17 -0500
From:   Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
To:     David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
Cc:     Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
        patches@...ts.linux.dev,
        Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
        Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@...s.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-um@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] of: Enable DTB loading on UML for KUnit tests

On 3/11/23 00:42, David Gow wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 at 07:34, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org> wrote:
>>
>> Quoting David Gow (2023-03-10 00:09:48)
>>> On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 at 07:19, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hmm. I think you're suggesting that the unit test data be loaded
>>>> whenever CONFIG_OF=y and CONFIG_KUNIT=y. Then tests can check for
>>>> CONFIG_OF and skip if it isn't enabled?
>>>>
>>>
>>> More of the opposite: that we should have some way of supporting tests
>>> which might want to use a DTB other than the built-in one. Mostly for
>>> non-UML situations where an actual devicetree is needed to even boot
>>> far enough to get test output (so we wouldn't be able to override it
>>> with a compiled-in test one).
>>
>> Ok, got it.
>>
>>>
>>> I think moving to overlays probably will render this idea obsolete:
>>> but the thought was to give test code a way to check for the required
>>> devicetree nodes at runtime, and skip the test if they weren't found.
>>> That way, the failure mode for trying to boot this on something which
>>> required another device tree for, e.g., serial, would be "these tests
>>> are skipped because the wrong device tree is loaded", not "I get no
>>> output because serial isn't working".
>>>
>>> Again, though, it's only really needed for non-UML, and just loading
>>> overlays as needed should be much more sensible anyway.
>>
>> I still have one niggle here. Loading overlays requires
>> CONFIG_OF_OVERLAY, and the overlay loading API returns -ENOTSUPP when
>> CONFIG_OF_OVERLAY=n. For now I'm checking for the config being enabled
>> in each test, but I'm thinking it may be better to simply call
>> kunit_skip() from the overlay loading function if the config is
>> disabled. This way tests can simply call the overlay loading function
>> and we'll halt the test immediately if the config isn't enabled.
>>
> 
> That sounds sensible, though there is a potential pitfall. If
> kunit_skip() is called directly from overlay code, might introduce a
> dependency on kunit.ko from the DT overlay, which we might not want.
> The solution there is either to have a kunit wrapper function (so the
> call is already in kunit.ko), or to have a hook to skip the current
> test (which probably makes sense to do anyway, but I think the wrapper
> is the better option).
> 
> 
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That being said, I do think that there's probably some sense in
>>>>> supporting the compiled-in DTB as well (it's definitely simpler than
>>>>> patching kunit.py to always pass the extra command-line option in, for
>>>>> example).
>>>>> But maybe it'd be nice to have the command-line option override the
>>>>> built-in one if present.
>>>>
>>>> Got it. I need to test loading another DTB on the commandline still, but
>>>> I think this won't be a problem. We'll load the unittest-data DTB even
>>>> with KUnit on UML, so assuming that works on UML right now it should be
>>>> unchanged by this series once I resend.
>>>
>>> Again, moving to overlays should render this mostly obsolete, no? Or
>>> am I misunderstanding how the overlay stuff will work?
>>
>> Right, overlays make it largely a moot issue. The way the OF unit tests
>> work today is by grafting a DTB onto the live tree. I'm reusing that
>> logic to graft a container node target for kunit tests to add their
>> overlays too. It will be clearer once I post v2.
>>
>>>
>>> One possible future advantage of being able to test with custom DTs at
>>> boot time would be for fuzzing (provide random DT properties, see what
>>> happens in the test). We've got some vague plans to support a way of
>>> passing custom data to tests to support this kind of case (though, if
>>> we're using overlays, maybe the test could just patch those if we
>>> wanted to do that).
>>
>> Ah ok. I can see someone making a fuzzer that modifies devicetree
>> properties randomly, e.g. using different strings for clock-names.
>>
>> This reminds me of another issue I ran into. I wanted to test adding the
>> same platform device to the platform bus twice to confirm that the
>> second device can't be added. That prints a warning, which makes
>> kunit.py think that the test has failed because it printed a warning. Is
>> there some way to avoid that? I want something like
>>
>>         KUNIT_EXPECT_WARNING(test, <call some function>)
>>
>> so I can test error cases.

DT unittests already have a similar concept.  A test can report that a
kernel warning (or any other specific text) either (1) must occur for the
test to pass or (2) must _not_ occur for the test to pass.  The check
for the kernel warning is done by the test output parsing program
scripts/dtc/of_unittest_expect.

The reporting by a test of an expected error in drivers/of/unittest.c
is done by EXPECT_BEGIN() and EXPECT_END().  These have been in
unittest for a long time.

The reporting by a test of a not expected to occur error is done
by EXPECT_NOT_BEGIN() and EXPECT_NOT_END().  These are added to
unittest in linux 6.3-rc1.

I discussed this concept in one of the early TAP / KTAP discussion
threads and expect to start a discussion thread on this specific
topic in the KTAP Specification V2 context.  I expect the discussion
to result in a different implementation than what DT unittests are
using (bike shedding likely to ensue) but whatever is agreed to
should be easy for DT to switch to.

> 
> Hmm... I'd've thought that shouldn't be a problem: kunit.py should
> ignore most messages during a test, unless it can't find a valid
> result line. What does the raw KTAP output look like? (You can get it
> from kunit.py by passing the --raw_output option).
> 
> That being said, a KUNIT_EXPECT_LOG_MESSAGE() or similar is something
> we've wanted for a while. I think that the KASAN folks have been
> working on something similar using console tracepoints:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/ebf96ea600050f00ed567e80505ae8f242633640.1666113393.git.andreyknvl@google.com/
> 
> Cheers,
> -- David

Powered by blists - more mailing lists