linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] kunit: kunit-test: Test logging a line that exactly fills a fragment

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: <08e1bba0-5ccc-dac1-28c9-81e69c996337@opensource.cirrus.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Aug 2023 15:24:13 +0100
From:   Richard Fitzgerald <rf@...nsource.cirrus.com>
To:     Rae Moar <rmoar@...gle.com>
CC:     <brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>, <davidgow@...gle.com>,
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, <kunit-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <patches@...nsource.cirrus.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] kunit: kunit-test: Test logging a line that
 exactly fills a fragment

On 9/8/23 22:22, Rae Moar wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 11:54 AM Richard Fitzgerald
> <rf@...nsource.cirrus.com> wrote:
>>
>> If a log string is the exact length of a log fragment buffer
>> kunit_log_append() should now exactly fill that fragment without
>> extending the log.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Richard Fitzgerald <rf@...nsource.cirrus.com>
> 
> Hello!
> 
> This test looks good to me. I have tested it and it seems to be working well.
> 
> I appreciate all of the assert and expect statements. I do have one
> comment below.
> 
> Although, I would be happy to set this as reviewed by me after that
> comment is responded to.
> 
> Thanks!
> -Rae
> 
>> ---
>>   lib/kunit/kunit-test.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 37 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c b/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
>> index c0ee33a8031e..9ac81828d018 100644
>> --- a/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
>> +++ b/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
>> @@ -763,12 +763,49 @@ static void kunit_log_extend_test_2(struct kunit *test)
>>   #endif
>>   }
>>
>> +static void kunit_log_frag_sized_line_test(struct kunit *test)
>> +{
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_KUNIT_DEBUGFS
>> +       struct kunit_suite suite;
>> +       struct kunit_log_frag *frag, *src;
>> +
>> +       suite.log = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*suite.log), GFP_KERNEL);
>> +       KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, suite.log);
>> +       INIT_LIST_HEAD(suite.log);
>> +       frag = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*frag), GFP_KERNEL);
>> +       KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, frag);
>> +       kunit_init_log_frag(frag);
>> +       list_add_tail(&frag->list, suite.log);
>> +
>> +       src = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*src), GFP_KERNEL);
>> +       KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, src);
>> +       memset(src->buf, 'x', sizeof(src->buf) - 2);
>> +       KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, strlen(src->buf), sizeof(src->buf) - 2);
> 
> Should this be an EXPECT instead? It doesn't seem like the test needs
> to fail immediately if this fails. Let me know what you think.

I think ASSERT is appropriate here. This isn't testing anything
(unless you don't trust memset). It's ensuring that the test data
I generate is what I expect otherwise the following testing is
invalid.

This is redundant because the first 3 lines must produce the expected
string, but I put it in to prove to myself that I can do math and
decided to leave it in.