| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CABVgOSk+YOdmpnBpLcx2sC3NN7amdpLf-C35EpvYmzq3SWHAqA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 16:38:28 +0800
From: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
To: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>
Cc: Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>,
Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...il.com>,
Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>,
Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
Andreas Hindborg <nmi@...aspace.dk>,
kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
patches@...ts.linux.dev, Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] KUnit integration for Rust doctests
On Tue, 18 Jul 2023 at 13:28, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/20230614180837.630180-1-ojeda@kernel.org/
> v2:
>
> - Rebased on top of v6.5-rc1, which requires a change from
> `kunit_do_failed_assertion` to `__kunit_do_failed_assertion` (since
> the former became a macro) and the addition of a call to
> `__kunit_abort` (since previously the call was done by the old
> function which we cannot use anymore since it is a macro). (David)
>
> - Added prerequisite patch to KUnit header to include `stddef.h` to
> support the `KUNIT=y` case. (Reported by Boqun)
>
> - Added comment on the purpose of `trait FromErrno`. (Martin asked
> about it)
>
> - Simplify code to use `std::fs::write` instead of `write!`, which
> improves code size too. (Suggested by Alice)
>
> - Fix copy-paste type in docs from "error" to "info" and, to make it
> proper English, copy the `printk` docs style, i.e. from "info"
> to "info-level message" -- and same for the "error" one. (Miguel)
>
> - Swap `FILE` and `LINE` `static`s to keep the same order as done
> elsewhere. (Miguel)
>
> - Rename config option from `RUST_KERNEL_KUNIT_TEST` to
> `RUST_KERNEL_DOCTESTS` (and update its title), so that we can use
> the former for the "normal" (i.e. non-doctests, e.g. `#[test]` ones)
> tests in the future. (David)
>
> - Follow the syntax proposed for declaring test metadata in the KTAP
> v2 spec, which may also get used for the KUnit test attributes API.
>
> Thus, instead of "# Doctest from line {line}", use
> "# {test_name}.location: {file}.{line}", which ideally will allow to
> migrate to a KUnit attribute later.
>
> This is done in all cases, i.e. when the tests succeeds, because
> it may be useful for users running KUnit manually, or when passing
> `--raw_output` to `kunit.py`. (David)
>
> David: I used "location" instead of your suggested "line" alone, in
> order to have both in a single line, which looked nice and closer to
> the "ASSERTION FAILURE" case/line, since now we do have the original
> file (please see below).
I like "location" better, personally. The attributes work is still
ongoing, and while there's some benefit to having "file" and "line"
separate (it could potentially simplify some implementation on the C
side), we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
>
> - Figure out the original line. This is done by deploying an anchor
> so that the difference in lines between the beginning of the test
> and the assert, in the generated file, can be computed. Then, we
> offset the line number of the original test, which is given by
> `rustdoc`. (developed by Boqun)
>
> - Figure out the original file. This is done by walking the
> filesystem, checking directory prefixes to reduce the amount of
> combinations to check, and it is only done once per file (rather
> than per test).
>
> Ambiguities are detected and reported. It does limit the filenames
> (module names) we can use, but it is unlikely we will hit it soon
> and this should be temporary anyway until `rustdoc` provides us
> with the real path. (Miguel)
>
> Tested with both in-tree and `O=` builds, but I would appreciate
> extra testing on this one, including via the `kunit.py` script.
>
This seems to be working well on the existing cases under kunit.py
here. I'll continue to play with it, but no worries on my end thus
far.
> - The three last items combined means that we now see this output even
> for successful cases:
>
> # rust_doctest_kernel_sync_locked_by_rs_0.location: rust/kernel/sync/locked_by.rs:28
> ok 53 rust_doctest_kernel_sync_locked_by_rs_0
>
> Which basically gives the user all the information they need to go
> back to the source code of the doctest, while keeping them fairly
> stable for bisection, and while avoiding to require users to write
> test names manually. (David + Boqun + Miguel)
>
> David: from what I saw in v2 of the RFC for the test attributes API,
> the syntax still contains the test name when it is not a suite, so
> I followed that, but if you prefer to omit it, please feel free to
> do so (for me either way it is fine, and if this is the expected
> attribute syntax, I guess it is worth to follow it to make migration
> easier later on):
>
> # location: rust/kernel/sync/locked_by.rs:28
> ok 53 rust_doctest_kernel_sync_locked_by_rs_0
Thanks: while we're still arguing a bit about exactly what the format
of these will look like in the KUnit/KTAP attributes spec/patches,
what you've used matches what we've been proposing so far.
Let's stick with <test name>.location for now, and change it if needed
when the attributes spec is finalised.
>
> - Collected `Reviewed-by`s and `Tested-by`s, except for the main
> commit due to the substantial changes.
>
> Miguel Ojeda (7):
> kunit: test-bug.h: include `stddef.h` for `NULL`
> rust: init: make doctests compilable/testable
> rust: str: make doctests compilable/testable
> rust: sync: make doctests compilable/testable
> rust: types: make doctests compilable/testable
> rust: support running Rust documentation tests as KUnit ones
> MAINTAINERS: add Rust KUnit files to the KUnit entry
These are all (still) looking pretty good to me. If there are no
objections, I'd like to take these into kselftest/kunit as-is and if
we need to change anything (e.g. for consistency with attributes when
they land), do that as a follow-up.
Thanks again, Miguel, for all the work getting this going!
Cheers,
-- David
>
> MAINTAINERS | 2 +
> include/kunit/test-bug.h | 2 +
> lib/Kconfig.debug | 13 ++
> rust/.gitignore | 2 +
> rust/Makefile | 29 ++++
> rust/bindings/bindings_helper.h | 1 +
> rust/helpers.c | 7 +
> rust/kernel/init.rs | 26 +--
> rust/kernel/kunit.rs | 163 +++++++++++++++++++
> rust/kernel/lib.rs | 2 +
> rust/kernel/str.rs | 4 +-
> rust/kernel/sync/arc.rs | 9 +-
> rust/kernel/sync/lock/mutex.rs | 1 +
> rust/kernel/sync/lock/spinlock.rs | 1 +
> rust/kernel/types.rs | 6 +-
> scripts/.gitignore | 2 +
> scripts/Makefile | 4 +
> scripts/rustdoc_test_builder.rs | 72 +++++++++
> scripts/rustdoc_test_gen.rs | 260 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 19 files changed, 591 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 rust/kernel/kunit.rs
> create mode 100644 scripts/rustdoc_test_builder.rs
> create mode 100644 scripts/rustdoc_test_gen.rs
>
>
> base-commit: 06c2afb862f9da8dc5efa4b6076a0e48c3fbaaa5
> --
> 2.41.0
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "KUnit Development" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kunit-dev+unsubscribe@...glegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kunit-dev/20230718052752.1045248-1-ojeda%40kernel.org.
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (4003 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists