| 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: <20260128230045.781937b5@foz.lan>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2026 23:00:45 +0100
From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
To: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, "David S. Miller"
<davem@...emloft.net>, Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann
<daniel@...earbox.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Jesper Dangaard
Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, Mauro
Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>, Richard Cochran
<richardcochran@...il.com>, <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
<intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Randy Dunlap
<rdunlap@...radead.org>, Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>, Stanislav
Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/25] kernel-doc: make it parse new functions and
structs
On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 10:15:51 -0800
Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com> wrote:
> On 1/28/2026 9:27 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org> writes:
> >
> >> Hi Jon,
> >>
> >> It is impressive how a single patch became a series with 25 ones ;-)
> >
> > *sigh*
> >
>
> Splitting things up helped me understand all the changes at least :)
>
> > I will try to have a good look at these shortly. It seems pretty clear
> > that this isn't 7.0 material at this point, though.
> >
> > One thing that jumped at me:
> >
> >> Ah, due to the complexity of NestedMatch, I opted to write
> >> some unit tests to verify that the logic there is correct.
> >> We can use it to add other border cases.
> >>
> >> Using it is as easy as running:
> >>
> >> $ tools/unittests/nested_match.py
> >>
> >> (I opted to create a separate directory for it, as this
> >> is not really documentation)
> >
> > Do we really need another unit-testing setup in the kernel? I can't say
> > I'm familiar enough with kunit to say whether it would work for
> > non-kernel code; have you looked and verified that it isn't suitable?
> >
>
> I'm not sure kunit would be suitable here, since its meant for running
> kernel code and does a lot of stuff to make that possible. It might be
> able to be extended, but.. this is python code. Why *shouldn't* we use
> one of the python unit test frameworks for it?
This is not using kunit. It is using standard "import unittest" from
Python internal lib.
> We have other python code in tree. Does any of that code have unit tests?
Good question. On a quick grep, it sounds so:
$ git grep "import unittest" tools scripts
scripts/rust_is_available_test.py:import unittest
tools/crypto/ccp/test_dbc.py:import unittest
tools/perf/pmu-events/metric_test.py:import unittest
tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py:import unittest
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_bpftool.py:import unittest
tools/testing/selftests/tpm2/tpm2.py:import unittest
tools/testing/selftests/tpm2/tpm2_tests.py:import unittest
> I agree that it doesn't make sense to build new bespoke unit tests
> different or unique per each python module, so if we want to adopt
> python unit tests we should try to pick something that works for the
> python tools in the kernel.
>
> Perhaps finding a way to integrate this with kunit so that you can use
> "kunit run" and get python tests executed as well would make sense?
> But.. then again this isn't kernel code so I'm not sure it makes sense
> to conflate the tests with kernel unit tests.
It shouldn't be hard to add it there - or to have a separate script
to run python unittests.
Assuming that we place all unittests at the same directory
(tools/unittests), the enclosed path will run all of them
altogether:
$ tools/unittests/run.py
Ran 35 tests in 0.001s
OK
nested_match:
TestStructGroup:
test_struct_group_01: OK
test_struct_group_02: OK
test_struct_group_03: OK
test_struct_group_04: OK
test_struct_group_05: OK
test_struct_group_06: OK
test_struct_group_07: OK
test_struct_group_08: OK
test_struct_group_09: OK
test_struct_group_10: OK
test_struct_group_11: OK
test_struct_group_12: OK
test_struct_group_13: OK
test_struct_group_14: OK
test_struct_group_15: OK
test_struct_group_16: OK
test_struct_group_17: OK
test_struct_group_18: OK
test_struct_group_19: OK
test_struct_group_sub: OK
TestSubMacros:
test_acquires_multiple: OK
test_acquires_nested_paren: OK
test_acquires_simple: OK
test_mixed_macros: OK
test_must_hold: OK
test_must_hold_shared: OK
test_no_false_positive: OK
test_no_macro_remains: OK
TestSubReplacement:
test_sub_count_parameter: OK
test_sub_mixed_placeholders: OK
test_sub_multiple_placeholders: OK
test_sub_no_placeholder: OK
test_sub_single_placeholder: OK
test_sub_with_capture: OK
test_sub_zero_placeholder: OK
Ran 35 tests
And the helper will also provide an argparse to allow filtering
tests, change verbosity and filtering them with a regex:
$ tools/unittests/run.py --help
usage: run.py [-h] [-v] [-f] [-k KEYWORD]
Test runner with regex filtering
options:
-h, --help show this help message and exit
-v, --verbose
-f, --failfast
-k, --keyword KEYWORD
Regex pattern to filter test methods
That's said, some integration with kunit can be interesting
to have it producing a KTAP output if needed by some CI.
---
[PATCH] [RFC] Run all tests from tools/unittests
This small example runs all unittests from tools/unittests with:
$ tools/unittests/run.py
Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
diff --git a/tools/lib/python/unittest_helper.py b/tools/lib/python/unittest_helper.py
index 3cf1075b1de4..af16acc3af17 100755
--- a/tools/lib/python/unittest_helper.py
+++ b/tools/lib/python/unittest_helper.py
@@ -213,7 +213,7 @@ class TestUnits:
help="Regex pattern to filter test methods")
return parser
- def run(self, caller_file, parser=None, args=None, env=None):
+ def run(self, caller_file, suite=None, parser=None, args=None, env=None):
"""Execute all tests from the unity test file"""
if not args:
if not parser:
@@ -232,9 +232,10 @@ class TestUnits:
unittest.TextTestRunner(verbosity=verbose).run = lambda suite: suite
# Load ONLY tests from the calling file
- loader = unittest.TestLoader()
- suite = loader.discover(start_dir=os.path.dirname(caller_file),
- pattern=os.path.basename(caller_file))
+ if not suite:
+ loader = unittest.TestLoader()
+ suite = loader.discover(start_dir=os.path.dirname(caller_file),
+ pattern=os.path.basename(caller_file))
# Flatten the suite for environment injection
tests_to_inject = flatten_suite(suite)
diff --git a/tools/unittests/run.py b/tools/unittests/run.py
new file mode 100755
index 000000000000..2a5a754219de
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/unittests/run.py
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+#!/bin/env python3
+import os
+import unittest
+import sys
+
+TOOLS_DIR=os.path.join(os.path.dirname(os.path.realpath(__file__)), "..")
+sys.path.insert(0, TOOLS_DIR)
+
+from lib.python.unittest_helper import TestUnits
+
+if __name__ == "__main__":
+ loader = unittest.TestLoader()
+
+ suite = loader.discover(start_dir=os.path.join(TOOLS_DIR, "unittests"),
+ pattern="*.py")
+
+ TestUnits().run("", suite=suite)
Thanks,
Mauro
Powered by blists - more mailing lists