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  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]
Date:   Tue, 17 Mar 2020 13:25:53 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     shuah@...nel.org, luto@...capital.net, wad@...omium.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com, Tim.Bird@...y.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/6] kselftest: run tests by fixture

On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 03:56:44PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> Now that all tests have a fixture object move from a global
> list of tests to a list of tests per fixture.
> 
> Order of tests may change as we will now group and run test
> fixture by fixture, rather than in declaration order.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/kselftest_harness.h | 32 +++++++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest_harness.h b/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest_harness.h
> index 0f68943d6f04..36ab1b92eb35 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest_harness.h
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest_harness.h
> @@ -660,8 +660,11 @@
>  }
>  
>  /* Contains all the information about a fixture */
> +struct __test_metadata;
> +

Comment should be moved under this (it applies to __fixture_metadata not
__test_metadata).

>  struct __fixture_metadata {
>  	const char *name;
> +	struct __test_metadata *tests;
>  	struct __fixture_metadata *prev, *next;
>  } _fixture_global __attribute__((unused)) = {
>  	.name = "global",
> @@ -696,7 +699,6 @@ struct __test_metadata {
>  };
>  
>  /* Storage for the (global) tests to be run. */
> -static struct __test_metadata *__test_list;
>  static unsigned int __test_count;
>  
>  /*
> @@ -710,8 +712,10 @@ static unsigned int __test_count;
>   */
>  static inline void __register_test(struct __test_metadata *t)
>  {
> +	struct __fixture_metadata *f = t->fixture;
> +
>  	__test_count++;
> -	__LIST_APPEND(__test_list, t);
> +	__LIST_APPEND(f->tests, t);

Not a big deal, but why not just "f->fixture->tests" here instead of a
separate variable?

>  }
>  
>  static inline int __bail(int for_realz, bool no_print, __u8 step)
> @@ -724,14 +728,15 @@ static inline int __bail(int for_realz, bool no_print, __u8 step)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> -void __run_test(struct __test_metadata *t)
> +void __run_test(struct __fixture_metadata *f,
> +		struct __test_metadata *t)
>  {
>  	pid_t child_pid;
>  	int status;
>  
>  	t->passed = 1;
>  	t->trigger = 0;
> -	printf("[ RUN      ] %s.%s\n", t->fixture->name, t->name);
> +	printf("[ RUN      ] %s.%s\n", f->name, t->name);
>  	alarm(t->timeout);
>  	child_pid = fork();
>  	if (child_pid < 0) {
> @@ -781,13 +786,14 @@ void __run_test(struct __test_metadata *t)
>  		}
>  	}
>  	printf("[     %4s ] %s.%s\n", (t->passed ? "OK" : "FAIL"),
> -	       t->fixture->name, t->name);
> +	       f->name, t->name);
>  	alarm(0);
>  }
>  
>  static int test_harness_run(int __attribute__((unused)) argc,
>  			    char __attribute__((unused)) **argv)
>  {
> +	struct __fixture_metadata *f;
>  	struct __test_metadata *t;
>  	int ret = 0;
>  	unsigned int count = 0;
> @@ -796,13 +802,15 @@ static int test_harness_run(int __attribute__((unused)) argc,
>  	/* TODO(wad) add optional arguments similar to gtest. */
>  	printf("[==========] Running %u tests from %u test cases.\n",
>  	       __test_count, __fixture_count + 1);
> -	for (t = __test_list; t; t = t->next) {
> -		count++;
> -		__run_test(t);
> -		if (t->passed)
> -			pass_count++;
> -		else
> -			ret = 1;
> +	for (f = __fixture_list; f; f = f->next) {
> +		for (t = f->tests; t; t = t->next) {
> +			count++;
> +			__run_test(f, t);
> +			if (t->passed)
> +				pass_count++;
> +			else
> +				ret = 1;
> +		}
>  	}
>  	printf("[==========] %u / %u tests passed.\n", pass_count, count);
>  	printf("[  %s  ]\n", (ret ? "FAILED" : "PASSED"));
> -- 
> 2.24.1
> 

But, with at least the first comment moved:

Acked-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>

-- 
Kees Cook

Powered by blists - more mailing lists