| 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: <CABVgOS=s09xCJYuwA2eVd34E3vCRV=T4f4XgWxLXa6m1k=T4Bw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2023 16:31:15 +0800
From: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
To: Rae Moar <rmoar@...gle.com>
Cc: shuah@...nel.org, dlatypov@...gle.com, brendan.higgins@...ux.dev,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, keescook@...omium.org,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, jstultz@...gle.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, sboyd@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 1/9] kunit: Add test attributes API structure
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 at 05:01, Rae Moar <rmoar@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 3:39 AM David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 at 05:09, Rae Moar <rmoar@...gle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Add the basic structure of the test attribute API to KUnit, which can be
> > > used to save and access test associated data.
> > >
> > > Add attributes.c and attributes.h to hold associated structs and functions
> > > for the API.
> > >
> > > Create a struct that holds a variety of associated helper functions for
> > > each test attribute. These helper functions will be used to get the
> > > attribute value, convert the value to a string, and filter based on the
> > > value. This struct is flexible by design to allow for attributes of
> > > numerous types and contexts.
> > >
> > > Add a method to print test attributes in the format of "# [<test_name if
> > > not suite>.]<attribute_name>: <attribute_value>".
> > >
> > > Example for a suite: "# speed: slow"
> > >
> > > Example for a test case: "# test_case.speed: very_slow"
> >
> > So, this is the one thing I'm a little unsure about here, and it's
> > really more of a problem with test names overall.
> >
> > As noted in the KTAPv2 attributes and test name proposals, the names
> > and attributes are only really defined for "suites", hence the need to
> > have a different output format for test cases.
> >
> > Personally, I'd prefer to keep the formats the same if we can (at
> > least for the actual KTAP output; I'm less concerned with the
> > list_attr option). That might make things a bit more difficult to
> > parse, though.
> >
> > One possibility would be to combine the KTAP attributes and test name
> > specs and suggest that every test has a "test name" attribute, which
> > must be the first attribute output.
> >
> > The output would then look something like:
> > KTAP version 2
> > # Name: my_suite
> > # Other-Attr: value
> > 1..2
> > KTAP version 2
> > # Name: test_1
> > # Other-Attr: value
> > ok 1 test_1
> > # Name: test_2
> > # Other-Attr: value
> > not ok 2 test_2
> > ok 1 my_suite
> >
> > Would there be any problems with something like that?
> >
> > I'm less concerned with the list_attr option, as that's not something
> > totally standardised in the way KTAP is.
> >
>
> This is a really interesting idea. I like that this standardizes the
> concept of KTAP test metadata for both test suites and test cases. I
> would love to discuss this concept further as KTAP v2 is developed.
>
> My main concern would be that there is push back on stating the test
> name when it is already present in the result line. This adds
> potentially unnecessary lines to the output. However, one positive to
> this is that diagnostic data could be printed under this header which
> would reduce any confusion for which test the diagnostic data refers
> to.
Yeah, I think the main advantage is that the test name is known when
any diagnostic/other lines are read, and the main disadvantage is that
for trivial cases, it becomes pretty redundant.
>
> I would be interested if anyone else has any opinions on this.
>
Let's stick with what we're doing for now, and take this to the KTAP thread.
> > >
> > > Use this method to report attributes in the KTAP output (KTAP spec:
> > > https://docs.kernel.org/dev-tools/ktap.html) and _list_tests output when
> > > kernel's new kunit.action=list_attr option is used. Note this is derivative
> > > of the kunit.action=list option.
> > >
> > > In test.h, add fields and associated helper functions to test cases and
> > > suites to hold user-inputted test attributes.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Rae Moar <rmoar@...gle.com>
> > > ---
> >
> > The only other thing I'd really like to support one day is having
> > attributes for individual parameters in parameterised tests. I think
> > it makes sense as a follow-up, though.
> >
>
> That is an exciting idea! I think that would be ideal as a follow-up.
>
Yeah, definitely no pressure to have that in the next version.
> > >
> > > Changes since v1:
> > > - Add list_attr option to only include attribute in the _list_tests output
> > > when this module param is set
> > > - Add printing options for attributes to print always, print only for
> > > suites, or print never.
> > >
> > > include/kunit/attributes.h | 19 +++++++++
> > > include/kunit/test.h | 33 ++++++++++++++++
> > > lib/kunit/Makefile | 3 +-
> > > lib/kunit/attributes.c | 80 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > lib/kunit/executor.c | 21 ++++++++--
> > > lib/kunit/test.c | 17 ++++----
> > > 6 files changed, 161 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > > create mode 100644 include/kunit/attributes.h
> > > create mode 100644 lib/kunit/attributes.c
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/kunit/attributes.h b/include/kunit/attributes.h
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 000000000000..9fcd184cce36
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/include/kunit/attributes.h
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
> > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> > > +/*
> > > + * KUnit API to save and access test attributes
> > > + *
> > > + * Copyright (C) 2023, Google LLC.
> > > + * Author: Rae Moar <rmoar@...gle.com>
> > > + */
> > > +
> > > +#ifndef _KUNIT_ATTRIBUTES_H
> > > +#define _KUNIT_ATTRIBUTES_H
> > > +
> > > +/*
> > > + * Print all test attributes for a test case or suite.
> > > + * Output format for test cases: "# <test_name>.<attribute>: <value>"
> > > + * Output format for test suites: "# <attribute>: <value>"
> > > + */
> > > +void kunit_print_attr(void *test_or_suite, bool is_test, unsigned int test_level);
> > > +
> > > +#endif /* _KUNIT_ATTRIBUTES_H */
> > > diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h
> > > index 23120d50499e..1fc9155988e9 100644
> > > --- a/include/kunit/test.h
> > > +++ b/include/kunit/test.h
> > > @@ -63,12 +63,16 @@ enum kunit_status {
> > > KUNIT_SKIPPED,
> > > };
> > >
> > > +/* Holds attributes for each test case and suite */
> > > +struct kunit_attributes {};
> >
> > Do we want a separate set of attributes for test cases and suites?
> > (I think probably not, but it's worth making sure.)
> >
>
> I'm thinking if our goal is to eventually move to arbitrary nesting
> for tests it would be easiest to try to keep this list the same. But I
> agree. There may definitely be attributes that are more applicable for
> test cases or suites. I'm inclined to keep it this way.
>
Agreed: having them share the same thing is definitely more future proof.
> > > +
> > > /**
> > > * struct kunit_case - represents an individual test case.
> > > *
> > > * @run_case: the function representing the actual test case.
> > > * @name: the name of the test case.
> > > * @generate_params: the generator function for parameterized tests.
> > > + * @attr: the attributes associated with the test
> > > *
> > > * A test case is a function with the signature,
> > > * ``void (*)(struct kunit *)``
> > > @@ -104,6 +108,7 @@ struct kunit_case {
> > > void (*run_case)(struct kunit *test);
> > > const char *name;
> > > const void* (*generate_params)(const void *prev, char *desc);
> > > + struct kunit_attributes attr;
> > >
> > > /* private: internal use only. */
> > > enum kunit_status status;
> > > @@ -133,6 +138,18 @@ static inline char *kunit_status_to_ok_not_ok(enum kunit_status status)
> > > */
> > > #define KUNIT_CASE(test_name) { .run_case = test_name, .name = #test_name }
> > >
> > > +/**
> > > + * KUNIT_CASE_ATTR - A helper for creating a &struct kunit_case
> > > + * with attributes
> > > + *
> > > + * @test_name: a reference to a test case function.
> > > + * @attributes: a reference to a struct kunit_attributes object containing
> > > + * test attributes
> > > + */
> > > +#define KUNIT_CASE_ATTR(test_name, attributes) \
> > > + { .run_case = test_name, .name = #test_name, \
> > > + .attr = attributes }
> > > +
> > > /**
> > > * KUNIT_CASE_PARAM - A helper for creation a parameterized &struct kunit_case
> > > *
> > > @@ -154,6 +171,20 @@ static inline char *kunit_status_to_ok_not_ok(enum kunit_status status)
> > > { .run_case = test_name, .name = #test_name, \
> > > .generate_params = gen_params }
> > >
> > > +/**
> > > + * KUNIT_CASE_PARAM_ATTR - A helper for creating a parameterized &struct
> > > + * kunit_case with attributes
> > > + *
> > > + * @test_name: a reference to a test case function.
> > > + * @gen_params: a reference to a parameter generator function.
> > > + * @attributes: a reference to a struct kunit_attributes object containing
> > > + * test attributes
> > > + */
> > > +#define KUNIT_CASE_PARAM_ATTR(test_name, gen_params, attributes) \
> > > + { .run_case = test_name, .name = #test_name, \
> > > + .generate_params = gen_params, \
> > > + .attr = attributes }
> > > +
> >
> > I do worry a bit that we'll end up with a huge list of variants of the
> > KUNIT_CASE_* macros if we start adding more things here. I can't think
> > of a better way to handle it at the moment, though.
> >
> >
>
> I agree. If this becomes an issue, this could be a follow up change?
>
Yeah, sounds good.
> >
> > > /**
> > > * struct kunit_suite - describes a related collection of &struct kunit_case
> > > *
> > > @@ -163,6 +194,7 @@ static inline char *kunit_status_to_ok_not_ok(enum kunit_status status)
> > > * @init: called before every test case.
> > > * @exit: called after every test case.
> > > * @test_cases: a null terminated array of test cases.
> > > + * @attr: the attributes associated with the test suite
> > > *
> > > * A kunit_suite is a collection of related &struct kunit_case s, such that
> > > * @init is called before every test case and @exit is called after every
> > > @@ -182,6 +214,7 @@ struct kunit_suite {
> > > int (*init)(struct kunit *test);
> > > void (*exit)(struct kunit *test);
> > > struct kunit_case *test_cases;
> > > + struct kunit_attributes attr;
> > >
> > > /* private: internal use only */
> > > char status_comment[KUNIT_STATUS_COMMENT_SIZE];
> > > diff --git a/lib/kunit/Makefile b/lib/kunit/Makefile
> > > index cb417f504996..46f75f23dfe4 100644
> > > --- a/lib/kunit/Makefile
> > > +++ b/lib/kunit/Makefile
> > > @@ -6,7 +6,8 @@ kunit-objs += test.o \
> > > string-stream.o \
> > > assert.o \
> > > try-catch.o \
> > > - executor.o
> > > + executor.o \
> > > + attributes.o
> > >
> > > ifeq ($(CONFIG_KUNIT_DEBUGFS),y)
> > > kunit-objs += debugfs.o
> > > diff --git a/lib/kunit/attributes.c b/lib/kunit/attributes.c
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 000000000000..9bda5a5f4030
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/lib/kunit/attributes.c
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
> > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > > +/*
> > > + * KUnit API to save and access test attributes
> > > + *
> > > + * Copyright (C) 2023, Google LLC.
> > > + * Author: Rae Moar <rmoar@...gle.com>
> > > + */
> > > +
> > > +#include <kunit/test.h>
> > > +#include <kunit/attributes.h>
> > > +
> > > +/* Options for printing attributes:
> > > + * PRINT_ALWAYS - attribute is printed for every test case and suite if set
> > > + * PRINT_SUITE - attribute is printed for every suite if set but not for test cases
> > > + * PRINT_NEVER - attribute is never printed
> > > + */
> > > +enum print_ops {
> > > + PRINT_ALWAYS,
> > > + PRINT_SUITE,
> > > + PRINT_NEVER,
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +/**
> > > + * struct kunit_attr - represents a test attribute and holds flexible
> > > + * helper functions to interact with attribute.
> > > + *
> > > + * @name: name of test attribute, eg. speed
> > > + * @get_attr: function to return attribute value given a test
> > > + * @to_string: function to return string representation of given
> > > + * attribute value
> > > + * @filter: function to indicate whether a given attribute value passes a
> > > + * filter
> > > + */
> > > +struct kunit_attr {
> > > + const char *name;
> > > + void *(*get_attr)(void *test_or_suite, bool is_test);
> > > + const char *(*to_string)(void *attr, bool *to_free);
> > > + int (*filter)(void *attr, const char *input, int *err);
> > > + void *attr_default;
> > > + enum print_ops print;
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +/* List of all Test Attributes */
> > > +
> > > +static struct kunit_attr kunit_attr_list[] = {};
> > > +
> > > +/* Helper Functions to Access Attributes */
> > > +
> > > +void kunit_print_attr(void *test_or_suite, bool is_test, unsigned int test_level)
> > > +{
> > > + int i;
> > > + bool to_free;
> > > + void *attr;
> > > + const char *attr_name, *attr_str;
> > > + struct kunit_suite *suite = is_test ? NULL : test_or_suite;
> > > + struct kunit_case *test = is_test ? test_or_suite : NULL;
> > > +
> > > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(kunit_attr_list); i++) {
> > > + if (kunit_attr_list[i].print == PRINT_NEVER ||
> > > + (test && kunit_attr_list[i].print == PRINT_SUITE))
> > > + continue;
> > > + attr = kunit_attr_list[i].get_attr(test_or_suite, is_test);
> > > + if (attr) {
> > > + attr_name = kunit_attr_list[i].name;
> > > + attr_str = kunit_attr_list[i].to_string(attr, &to_free);
> > > + if (test) {
> > > + kunit_log(KERN_INFO, test, "%*s# %s.%s: %s",
> > > + KUNIT_INDENT_LEN * test_level, "", test->name,
> > > + attr_name, attr_str);
> > > + } else {
> > > + kunit_log(KERN_INFO, suite, "%*s# %s: %s",
> > > + KUNIT_INDENT_LEN * test_level, "", attr_name, attr_str);
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + /* Free to_string of attribute if needed */
> > > + if (to_free)
> > > + kfree(attr_str);
> > > + }
> > > + }
> > > +}
> > > diff --git a/lib/kunit/executor.c b/lib/kunit/executor.c
> > > index 74982b83707c..12e38a48a5cc 100644
> > > --- a/lib/kunit/executor.c
> > > +++ b/lib/kunit/executor.c
> > > @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
> > >
> > > #include <linux/reboot.h>
> > > #include <kunit/test.h>
> > > +#include <kunit/attributes.h>
> > > #include <linux/glob.h>
> > > #include <linux/moduleparam.h>
> > >
> > > @@ -24,7 +25,8 @@ module_param_named(action, action_param, charp, 0);
> > > MODULE_PARM_DESC(action,
> > > "Changes KUnit executor behavior, valid values are:\n"
> > > "<none>: run the tests like normal\n"
> > > - "'list' to list test names instead of running them.\n");
> > > + "'list' to list test names instead of running them.\n"
> > > + "'list_attr' to list test names and attributes instead of running them.\n");
> > >
> > > /* glob_match() needs NULL terminated strings, so we need a copy of filter_glob_param. */
> > > struct kunit_test_filter {
> > > @@ -172,7 +174,7 @@ static void kunit_exec_run_tests(struct suite_set *suite_set)
> > > __kunit_test_suites_init(suite_set->start, num_suites);
> > > }
> > >
> > > -static void kunit_exec_list_tests(struct suite_set *suite_set)
> > > +static void kunit_exec_list_tests(struct suite_set *suite_set, bool include_attr)
> > > {
> > > struct kunit_suite * const *suites;
> > > struct kunit_case *test_case;
> > > @@ -180,10 +182,19 @@ static void kunit_exec_list_tests(struct suite_set *suite_set)
> > > /* Hack: print a ktap header so kunit.py can find the start of KUnit output. */
> > > pr_info("KTAP version 1\n");
> > >
> > > - for (suites = suite_set->start; suites < suite_set->end; suites++)
> > > + for (suites = suite_set->start; suites < suite_set->end; suites++) {
> > > + /* Print suite name and suite attributes */
> > > + pr_info("%s\n", (*suites)->name);
> > > + if (include_attr)
> > > + kunit_print_attr((void *)(*suites), false, 0);
> > > +
> > > + /* Print test case name and attributes in suite */
> > > kunit_suite_for_each_test_case((*suites), test_case) {
> > > pr_info("%s.%s\n", (*suites)->name, test_case->name);
> > > + if (include_attr)
> > > + kunit_print_attr((void *)test_case, true, 0);
> > > }
> > > + }
> > > }
> > >
> > > int kunit_run_all_tests(void)
> > > @@ -206,7 +217,9 @@ int kunit_run_all_tests(void)
> > > if (!action_param)
> > > kunit_exec_run_tests(&suite_set);
> > > else if (strcmp(action_param, "list") == 0)
> > > - kunit_exec_list_tests(&suite_set);
> > > + kunit_exec_list_tests(&suite_set, false);
> > > + else if (strcmp(action_param, "list_attr") == 0)
> > > + kunit_exec_list_tests(&suite_set, true);
> > > else
> > > pr_err("kunit executor: unknown action '%s'\n", action_param);
> > >
> > > diff --git a/lib/kunit/test.c b/lib/kunit/test.c
> > > index 84e4666555c9..9ee55139ecd1 100644
> > > --- a/lib/kunit/test.c
> > > +++ b/lib/kunit/test.c
> > > @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
> > > #include <kunit/resource.h>
> > > #include <kunit/test.h>
> > > #include <kunit/test-bug.h>
> > > +#include <kunit/attributes.h>
> > > #include <linux/kernel.h>
> > > #include <linux/module.h>
> > > #include <linux/moduleparam.h>
> > > @@ -168,6 +169,13 @@ size_t kunit_suite_num_test_cases(struct kunit_suite *suite)
> > > }
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kunit_suite_num_test_cases);
> > >
> > > +/* Currently supported test levels */
> > > +enum {
> > > + KUNIT_LEVEL_SUITE = 0,
> > > + KUNIT_LEVEL_CASE,
> > > + KUNIT_LEVEL_CASE_PARAM,
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > static void kunit_print_suite_start(struct kunit_suite *suite)
> > > {
> > > /*
> > > @@ -181,17 +189,11 @@ static void kunit_print_suite_start(struct kunit_suite *suite)
> > > pr_info(KUNIT_SUBTEST_INDENT "KTAP version 1\n");
> > > pr_info(KUNIT_SUBTEST_INDENT "# Subtest: %s\n",
> > > suite->name);
> > > + kunit_print_attr((void *)suite, false, KUNIT_LEVEL_CASE);
> > > pr_info(KUNIT_SUBTEST_INDENT "1..%zd\n",
> > > kunit_suite_num_test_cases(suite));
> > > }
> > >
> > > -/* Currently supported test levels */
> > > -enum {
> > > - KUNIT_LEVEL_SUITE = 0,
> > > - KUNIT_LEVEL_CASE,
> > > - KUNIT_LEVEL_CASE_PARAM,
> > > -};
> > > -
> > > static void kunit_print_ok_not_ok(struct kunit *test,
> > > unsigned int test_level,
> > > enum kunit_status status,
> > > @@ -651,6 +653,7 @@ int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite)
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > + kunit_print_attr((void *)test_case, true, KUNIT_LEVEL_CASE);
> > >
> > > kunit_print_test_stats(&test, param_stats);
> > >
> > > --
> > > 2.41.0.255.g8b1d071c50-goog
> > >
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (4003 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists