linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] bitmap: Rename module

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: <504beb91-f0a3-47f4-8d68-d62577bb17d1@nvidia.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 11:44:14 -0700
From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To: Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>, David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>,
 Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, kees@...nel.org,
 Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@...labora.com>
Cc: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
 kernel@...labora.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] bitmap: Rename module

On 7/30/24 11:17 AM, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 7/30/24 09:55, Shuah Khan wrote:
>> On 7/30/24 04:10, David Gow wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 at 22:09, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> 
...
>>> I can see the point that renaming the config option is just churn, but
>>> is there a reason people would run the bitmap selftest but be unable
>>> or unwilling to use KUnit?
>>>
>>> Beyond a brief period of adjustment (which could probably be made
>>> quite minimal with a wrapper script or something), there shouldn't
>>> really be any fundamental difference: KUnit tests can already run at
>>> boot, be configured with a config option, and write output to the
>>> kernel log. There's nothing really being taken away here, and the
>>> bonus of having easier access to run the tests with KUnit's tooling
>>> (or have them automatically run by systems which run KUnit tests)
>>> would seem worthwhile to me, especially since it's optional. And
>>> CONFIG_KUNIT shouldn't be heavy enough to cause problems.
>>>
> 
> Shouldn't be is the operative word? This doesn't help people who
> want run a run bitmap test on a running system. This is a wrong
> direction to go to say all testing has to be done under kunit.
> 
> What happened to the effort to run selftests as is under KUnit? What
> is the motivation to convert all tests to kunit instead of trying to
> provide support to run kselftest under kunit environment?
> 
> We discussed this a few years ago as I recall. Let's work on that
> instead of removing existing selftests and regressing current use-cases?
> 
> Can we look into providing:
> 
> 1. running kselftest under kunit environment without changes
>     as user space applications?

Yes. I suggested this earlier: if something fits neatly into
a KUnit test, then with some additional work, it can also be
run from kselftest. Just supporting both would be very nice,
because people don't have to change anything about their testing
flow.


> 2. Leave kselftests alone so we don't weaken kernel testing

Or augment them as above, so that we don't weaken kernel testing,
yes.


thanks,

-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA