linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 09/16] kunit: tool: Don't overwrite test status based on subtest counts

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: <20250620152016-7f39b3bb-1738-4593-bc59-6ab37f04feee@linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2025 15:23:09 +0200
From: Thomas Weißschuh <thomas.weissschuh@...utronix.de>
To: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
Cc: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>, 
	Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>, 
	Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>, Rae Moar <rmoar@...gle.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, 
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Nicolas Schier <nicolas.schier@...ux.dev>, 
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>, 
	Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, Alexandre Ghiti <alex@...ti.fr>, 
	Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, workflows@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 09/16] kunit: tool: Don't overwrite test status based
 on subtest counts

On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 05:37:44PM +0800, David Gow wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 at 15:38, Thomas Weißschuh
> <thomas.weissschuh@...utronix.de> wrote:
> >
> > If a subtest itself reports success, but the outer testcase fails,
> > the whole testcase should be reported as a failure.
> > However the status is recalculated based on the test counts,
> > overwriting the outer test result.
> > Synthesize a failed test in this case to make sure the failure is not
> > swallowed.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <thomas.weissschuh@...utronix.de>
> > ---
> 
> Hmm... this is definitely a nasty edge-case. I don't completely like
> this solution, but none of the other options seem drastically better.
> 
> I think the more obvious options are either to _always_ count tests
> alongside their subtests, or to _never_ do so, but acknowledge that
> "test failed, but failure count is 0" is a valid option. But neither
> of those are especially satisfying, either greatly inflating test
> counts, or creating obvious contradictions.
> 
> So I'm tentatively in favour of this, but if anyone has a nicer way of
> doing it, I'm all ears.

Agreed, it is not great. I'd also be happy for better ideas.

> The implementation looks good. If we can add the explicit checks for
> the sub(sub)test results as mentioned in the previous patch, that'd be
> even better.
> 
> Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
> 
> >  tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py                                  | 5 +++++
> >  tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py                               | 2 +-
> >  tools/testing/kunit/test_data/test_is_test_passed-failure-nested.log | 3 +++
> >  3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py
> > index c176487356e6c94882046b19ea696d750905b8d5..2478beb28fc3db825855ad46200340e884da7df1 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py
> > +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py
> > @@ -686,6 +686,11 @@ def bubble_up_test_results(test: Test) -> None:
> >                 counts.add_status(status)
> >         elif test.counts.get_status() == TestStatus.TEST_CRASHED:
> >                 test.status = TestStatus.TEST_CRASHED
> > +       if not test.ok_status():
> > +               for t in subtests:
> > +                       if not t.ok_status():
> > +                               counts.add_status(t.status)
> > +                               break
> >
> >  def parse_test(lines: LineStream, expected_num: int, log: List[str], is_subtest: bool, printer: Printer) -> Test:
> >         """
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
> > index 691cde9b030f7729128490c1bdb42ccee1967ad6..c25f52650837e83325b06bddd2aa665fd29f91d9 100755
> > --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
> > +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
> > @@ -170,7 +170,7 @@ class KUnitParserTest(unittest.TestCase):
> >                 with open(nested_log) as file:
> >                         result = kunit_parser.parse_run_tests(file.readlines(), stdout)
> >                 self.assertEqual(kunit_parser.TestStatus.FAILURE, result.status)
> > -               self.assertEqual(result.counts.failed, 2)
> > +               self.assertEqual(result.counts.failed, 3)
> >                 self.assertEqual(kunit_parser.TestStatus.FAILURE, result.subtests[0].status)
> 
> Could we add:
> self.assertEqual(kunit_parser.TestStatus.SUCCESS,
> result.subtests[0].subtests[0].status)
> 
> >                 self.assertEqual(kunit_parser.TestStatus.FAILURE, result.subtests[1].status)

Ack.

> and
> 
> self.assertEqual(kunit_parser.TestStatus.FAILURE,
> result.subtests[1].subtests[0].status)

This is now already in the previous patch.

> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/test_data/test_is_test_passed-failure-nested.log b/tools/testing/kunit/test_data/test_is_test_passed-failure-nested.log
> > index 835816e0a07715a514f5f5afab1b6250037feaf4..cd9033c464792e6294905a5676346684182874ad 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/kunit/test_data/test_is_test_passed-failure-nested.log
> > +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/test_data/test_is_test_passed-failure-nested.log
> > @@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
> >  KTAP version 1
> >  1..2
> > +    KTAP version 1
> > +    1..1
> > +        ok 1 test 1
> >  not ok 1 subtest 1
> >      KTAP version 1
> >      1..1
> >
> > --
> > 2.49.0
> >