| 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=vsaUjZg1S9VApDFZjHN5d08NswtDNWWsJxUEvg0xGSw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2025 17:44:55 +0800
From: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
To: Marie Zhussupova <marievic@...gle.com>
Cc: rmoar@...gle.com, shuah@...nel.org, brendan.higgins@...ux.dev,
elver@...gle.com, dvyukov@...gle.com, lucas.demarchi@...el.com,
thomas.hellstrom@...ux.intel.com, rodrigo.vivi@...el.com,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, intel-xe@...ts.freedesktop.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] kunit: Add example parameterized test with direct
dynamic parameter array setup
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 at 03:37, Marie Zhussupova <marievic@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> Introduce `example_params_test_with_init_dynamic_arr`. This new
> KUnit test demonstrates directly assigning a dynamic parameter
> array using the `kunit_register_params_array` macro. It highlights the
> use of `param_init` and `param_exit` for proper initialization and
> cleanup, and their registration to the test with
> `KUNIT_CASE_PARAM_WITH_INIT`.
>
> Signed-off-by: Marie Zhussupova <marievic@...gle.com>
> ---
This is an excellent example, thanks. (I much prefer it to the
previous one. In fact, if we could use some shared resource in this,
we could probably get rid of the previous one entirely.)
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
Cheers,
-- David
> lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c | 95 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 95 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c b/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c
> index 5bf559e243f6..3ab121d81bf6 100644
> --- a/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c
> +++ b/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c
> @@ -387,6 +387,98 @@ static void example_params_test_with_init(struct kunit *test)
> kunit_put_resource(res);
> }
>
> +/*
> + * Helper function to create a parameter array of Fibonacci numbers. This example
> + * highlights a parameter generation scenario that is:
> + * 1. Not feasible to fully pre-generate at compile time.
> + * 2. Challenging to implement with a standard 'generate_params' function,
> + * as it typically only provides the immediately 'prev' parameter, while
> + * Fibonacci requires access to two preceding values for calculation.
> + */
> +static void *make_fibonacci_params(int seq_size)
> +{
> + int *seq;
> +
> + if (seq_size <= 0)
> + return NULL;
> +
> + seq = kmalloc_array(seq_size, sizeof(int), GFP_KERNEL);
If we used kunit_kmalloc_array here (we'd need to pass test through
somehow, though), we could have a good example of a shared resource
here.
> +
> + if (!seq)
> + return NULL;
> +
> + if (seq_size >= 1)
> + seq[0] = 0;
> + if (seq_size >= 2)
> + seq[1] = 1;
> + for (int i = 2; i < seq_size; i++)
> + seq[i] = seq[i - 1] + seq[i - 2];
> + return seq;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * This is an example of a function that provides a description for each of the
> + * parameters.
> + */
> +static void example_param_dynamic_arr_get_desc(const void *p, char *desc)
Seeing this makes me wonder whether we should pass struct *kunit to
the get_desc function, too.
Thoughts?
> +{
> + const int *fib_num = p;
> +
> + snprintf(desc, KUNIT_PARAM_DESC_SIZE, "fibonacci param: %d", *fib_num);
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Example of a parameterized test init function that registers a dynamic array.
> + */
> +static int example_param_init_dynamic_arr(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> + int seq_size = 6;
> + int *fibonacci_params = make_fibonacci_params(seq_size);
> +
> + if (!fibonacci_params)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + /*
> + * Passes the dynamic parameter array information to the parent struct kunit.
> + * The array and its metadata will be stored in test->parent->params_data.
> + * The array itself will be located in params_data.params.
> + */
> + kunit_register_params_array(test, fibonacci_params, seq_size,
> + example_param_dynamic_arr_get_desc);
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * Function to clean up the parameterized test's parent kunit struct if
> + * there were custom allocations.
> + */
> +static void example_param_exit_dynamic_arr(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> + /*
> + * We allocated this array, so we need to free it.
> + * Since the parent parameter instance is passed here,
> + * we can directly access the array via `test->params_data.params`
> + * instead of `test->parent->params_data.params`.
> + */
> + kfree(test->params_data.params);
If we used kunit_kmalloc_array above, though, we'd miss this good
example. So I'm torn...
(I suppose we could use kunit_kfree() anyway, though, and just rely on
the shared resource management for early aborts.)
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Example of test that uses the registered dynamic array to perform assertions
> + * and expectations.
> + */
> +static void example_params_test_with_init_dynamic_arr(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> + const int *param = test->param_value;
> + int param_val;
> +
> + /* By design, param pointer will not be NULL. */
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_NULL(test, param);
> +
> + param_val = *param;
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, param_val - param_val, 0);
> +}
> +
> /*
> * Here we make a list of all the test cases we want to add to the test suite
> * below.
> @@ -408,6 +500,9 @@ static struct kunit_case example_test_cases[] = {
> KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(example_params_test, example_gen_params),
> KUNIT_CASE_PARAM_WITH_INIT(example_params_test_with_init, NULL,
> example_param_init, NULL),
> + KUNIT_CASE_PARAM_WITH_INIT(example_params_test_with_init_dynamic_arr, NULL,
> + example_param_init_dynamic_arr,
> + example_param_exit_dynamic_arr),
> KUNIT_CASE_SLOW(example_slow_test),
> {}
> };
> --
> 2.50.1.552.g942d659e1b-goog
>
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (5281 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists