linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kunit: tool: Fix bug in parsing test plan

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: <CA+i-1C12kG9t=jqnVaKnvN4xCn58cTeph4QHOTL0+eg98rn52w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2025 13:25:47 +0100
From: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com>
To: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
Cc: Rae Moar <rmoar@...gle.com>, shuah@...nel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, 
	kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kunit: tool: Fix bug in parsing test plan

On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 at 10:00, David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 at 08:29, Rae Moar <rmoar@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > A bug was identified where the KTAP below caused an infinite loop:
> >
> >  TAP version 13
> >  ok 4 test_case
> >  1..4
> >
> > The infinite loop was caused by the parser not parsing a test plan
> > if following a test result line.
> >
> > Fix bug to correctly parse test plan and add error if test plan is
> > missing.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rae Moar <rmoar@...gle.com>

Thanks for taking a look at this Rae! I tried to take a look myself
but I could not really get a grip on the parsing logic in the time I
had.

> Thanks for looking into this: I don't think we want to unconditionally
> error if there's no test plan, though. Pretty much no parameterised
> tests include one -- it's not always possible to know how many tests
> there'll be in advance -- so this triggers all of the time.
>
> Maybe we can only include an error if we find a test plan line after
> an existing result, or something?

Since I reported this bug, I discovered that the example above is in
fact valid TAP:

> The plan [...] must appear once, whether at the beginning or end of the output.

>From https://testanything.org/tap-version-13-specification.html