linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] iommu/io-pgtable-arm-selftests: Use KUnit

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: <20251016172524.GN3938986@ziepe.ca>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2025 14:25:24 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
Cc: Mostafa Saleh <smostafa@...gle.com>, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	will@...nel.org, joro@...tes.org, praan@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] iommu/io-pgtable-arm-selftests: Use KUnit

On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 06:17:35PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:

> In this case AFAICS kunit_device_register() can only fail due to OOM or
> something unexpectedly messed up in the kobject/sysfs hierarchy, all of
> which should already scream (and represent the system being sufficiently
> hosed that any actual test results probably no longer matter anyway) -
> otherwise I would have suggested a kunit_err() message too.

Yes, I think so too. Which is why I think the simple
KUNIT_ASSERT_FALSE is fine - we don't need to over think something
that should never happen.

Basically it is a simple logic for the test writer, any thing in the
test body that doesn't work as expected triggers a
KUNIT_ASSERT. Infrastructure included.

At least that is how I've written all my tests so far, including the
userspace ones..

Jason