linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/8] drivers: kunit: Generic helpers for test device creation

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: <12ea1d68-2a3c-0aa7-976c-7bd3eef35239@fi.rohmeurope.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 Mar 2023 07:17:40 +0000
From:   "Vaittinen, Matti" <Matti.Vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
CC:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>,
        David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kunit-dev@...glegroups.com" <kunit-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Maxime Ripard <maxime@...no.tech>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        "linux-iio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/8] drivers: kunit: Generic helpers for test device
 creation

On 3/22/23 20:57, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 03:48:00PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>> Thanks for looking at this.
>>
>> On 3/22/23 14:07, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 11:05:55AM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
>>>> +/**
>>>> + * test_kunit_helper_alloc_device - Allocate a mock device for a KUnit test
>>>> + * @test: The test context object
>>>> + *
>>>> + * This allocates a fake struct &device to create a mock for a KUnit
>>>> + * test. The device will also be bound to a fake driver. It will thus be
>>>> + * able to leverage the usual infrastructure and most notably the
>>>> + * device-managed resources just like a "real" device.
>>>
>>> What specific "usual infrastructure" are you wanting to access here?
>>>
>>> And again, if you want a fake device, make a virtual one, by just
>>> calling device_create().
>>>
>>> Or are you wanting to do "more" with that device pointer than
>>> device_create() can give you?
>>
>> Personally, I was (am) only interested in devm_ unwinding. I guess the
>> device_create(), device_add(), device_remove()... (didn't study this
>> sequence in details so sorry if there is errors) could've been sufficient
>> for me. I haven't looked how much of the code that there is for 'platform
>> devices' should be duplicated to support that sequence for testability
>> purposes.
> 
> Any device can access devm_ code, there's no need for it to be a
> platform device at all.
> 
>> The biggest thing for me is that I don't like the idea of creating own 'test
>> device' in <add subsystem here> while we already have some in DRM (or
>> others). Thus, I do see value in adding generic helpers for supporting
>> running KUnit tests on devm_* APIs. Hence it'd be good to have _some_
>> support for it.
> 
> I agree, let's use a virtual device and a virtual bus (you can use the
> auxbus code for this as that's all there for this type of thing)

Hm. The auxiliary_devices require parent. What would be the best way to 
deal with that in KUnit tests?

> then you can test the devm_* code, _AND_ you can test the driver core at
> the same time.
> 
>> And having them in drivers/base/test seemed like a correct
>> place to me. What I really don't know is if there are legitimate use-cases
>> for using platform_devices in DRM tests. Perhaps Maxime can shed light on
>> that.
> 
> I agree that this could be in drivers/base/test/ but then let's test the
> driver core, not just provide a dummy platform device.
> 
> If you want to test the platform driver/device api, that would be great
> too, that can be plaform device/driver specific, but don't use one for
> some other random driver core functionality please.

I am very conservative what comes to adding unit tests due to the huge 
inertia they add to any further development. I usually only add tests to 
APIs which I know won't require changing (I don't know such in-kernel 
APIs) - or to functions which I think are error-prone. So, I am probably 
one of the last persons adding UTs to code I don't know :)

Yours,
	-- Matti

-- 
Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland

~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~