From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Brendan Higgins Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/17] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 03:23:26 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20190509015856.GB7031@mit.edu> <580e092f-fa4e-eedc-9e9a-a57dd085f0a6@gmail.com> <20190509032017.GA29703@mit.edu> <7fd35df81c06f6eb319223a22e7b93f29926edb9.camel@oracle.com> <20190509133551.GD29703@mit.edu> <875c546d-9713-bb59-47e4-77a1d2c69a6d@gmail.com> <20190509214233.GA20877@mit.edu> <20190509233043.GC20877@mit.edu> <8914afef-1e66-e6e3-f891-5855768d3018@deltatee.com> <6d6e91ec-33d3-830b-4895-4d7a20ba7d45@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Vetter Cc: Knut Omang , Frank Rowand , Logan Gunthorpe , Theodore Ts'o , "Bird, Timothy" , Greg KH , Kees Cook , Kieran Bingham , "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Rob Herring , Stephen Boyd , Shuah Khan , devicetree , dri-devel , kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, Linux Doc Mailing List , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kbuild , Linux Kernel Mailing List , open list: List-Id: linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org > On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 7:49 AM Knut Omang wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2019-05-09 at 22:18 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote: > > > On 5/9/19 4:40 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2019-05-09 5:30 p.m., Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > > >> On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 04:20:05PM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> The second item, arguably, does have significant overlap with kselftest. > > > >>> Whether you are running short tests in a light weight UML environment or > > > >>> higher level tests in an heavier VM the two could be using the same > > > >>> framework for writing or defining in-kernel tests. It *may* also be valuable > > > >>> for some people to be able to run all the UML tests in the heavy VM > > > >>> environment along side other higher level tests. > > > >>> > > > >>> Looking at the selftests tree in the repo, we already have similar items to > > > >>> what Kunit is adding as I described in point (2) above. kselftest_harness.h > > > >>> contains macros like EXPECT_* and ASSERT_* with very similar intentions to > > > >>> the new KUNIT_EXECPT_* and KUNIT_ASSERT_* macros. > > > >>> > > > >>> However, the number of users of this harness appears to be quite small. Most > > > >>> of the code in the selftests tree seems to be a random mismash of scripts > > > >>> and userspace code so it's not hard to see it as something completely > > > >>> different from the new Kunit: > > > >>> > > > >>> $ git grep --files-with-matches kselftest_harness.h * > > > >> > > > >> To the extent that we can unify how tests are written, I agree that > > > >> this would be a good thing. However, you should note that > > > >> kselftest_harness.h is currently assums that it will be included in > > > >> userspace programs. This is most obviously seen if you look closely > > > >> at the functions defined in the header files which makes calls to > > > >> fork(), abort() and fprintf(). > > > > > > > > Ah, yes. I obviously did not dig deep enough. Using kunit for > > > > in-kernel tests and kselftest_harness for userspace tests seems like > > > > a sensible line to draw to me. Trying to unify kernel and userspace > > > > here sounds like it could be difficult so it's probably not worth > > > > forcing the issue unless someone wants to do some really fancy work > > > > to get it done. > > > > > > > > Based on some of the other commenters, I was under the impression > > > > that kselftests had in-kernel tests but I'm not sure where or if they > > > > exist. > > > > > > YES, kselftest has in-kernel tests. (Excuse the shouting...) > > > > > > Here is a likely list of them in the kernel source tree: > > > > > > $ grep module_init lib/test_*.c > > > lib/test_bitfield.c:module_init(test_bitfields) > > > lib/test_bitmap.c:module_init(test_bitmap_init); > > > lib/test_bpf.c:module_init(test_bpf_init); > > > lib/test_debug_virtual.c:module_init(test_debug_virtual_init); > > > lib/test_firmware.c:module_init(test_firmware_init); > > > lib/test_hash.c:module_init(test_hash_init); /* Does everything */ > > > lib/test_hexdump.c:module_init(test_hexdump_init); > > > lib/test_ida.c:module_init(ida_checks); > > > lib/test_kasan.c:module_init(kmalloc_tests_init); > > > lib/test_list_sort.c:module_init(list_sort_test); > > > lib/test_memcat_p.c:module_init(test_memcat_p_init); > > > lib/test_module.c:static int __init test_module_init(void) > > > lib/test_module.c:module_init(test_module_init); > > > lib/test_objagg.c:module_init(test_objagg_init); > > > lib/test_overflow.c:static int __init test_module_init(void) > > > lib/test_overflow.c:module_init(test_module_init); > > > lib/test_parman.c:module_init(test_parman_init); > > > lib/test_printf.c:module_init(test_printf_init); > > > lib/test_rhashtable.c:module_init(test_rht_init); > > > lib/test_siphash.c:module_init(siphash_test_init); > > > lib/test_sort.c:module_init(test_sort_init); > > > lib/test_stackinit.c:module_init(test_stackinit_init); > > > lib/test_static_key_base.c:module_init(test_static_key_base_init); > > > lib/test_static_keys.c:module_init(test_static_key_init); > > > lib/test_string.c:module_init(string_selftest_init); > > > lib/test_ubsan.c:module_init(test_ubsan_init); > > > lib/test_user_copy.c:module_init(test_user_copy_init); > > > lib/test_uuid.c:module_init(test_uuid_init); > > > lib/test_vmalloc.c:module_init(vmalloc_test_init) > > > lib/test_xarray.c:module_init(xarray_checks); > > > > > > > > > > If they do exists, it seems like it would make sense to > > > > convert those to kunit and have Kunit tests run-able in a VM or > > > > baremetal instance. > > > > > > They already run in a VM. > > > > > > They already run on bare metal. > > > > > > They already run in UML. > > > > > > This is not to say that KUnit does not make sense. But I'm still trying > > > to get a better description of the KUnit features (and there are > > > some). > > > > FYI, I have a master student who looks at converting some of these to KTF, such as for > > instance the XArray tests, which lended themselves quite good to a semi-automated > > conversion. > > > > The result is also a somewhat more compact code as well as the flexibility > > provided by the Googletest executor and the KTF frameworks, such as running selected > > tests, output formatting, debugging features etc. > > So is KTF already in upstream? Or is the plan to unify the KTF and I am not certain about KTF's upstream plans, but I assume that Knut would have CC'ed me on the thread if he had started working on it. > Kunit in-kernel test harnesses? Because there's tons of these No, no plan. Knut and I talked about this a good while ago and it seemed that we had pretty fundamentally different approaches both in terms of implementation and end goal. Combining them seemed pretty infeasible, at least from a technical perspective. Anyway, I am sure Knut would like to give him perspective on the matter and I don't want to say too much without first giving him a chance to chime in on the matter. Nevertheless, I hope you don't see resolving this as a condition for accepting this patchset. I had several rounds of RFC on KUnit, and no one had previously brought this up. > in-kernel unit tests already, and every merge we get more (Frank's > list didn't even look into drivers or anywhere else, e.g. it's missing > the locking self tests I worked on in the past), and a more structured > approach would really be good. Well, that's what I am trying to do. I hope you like it! Cheers! From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.5 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_PASS,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C66BC04A6B for ; Fri, 10 May 2019 10:23:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB92920989 for ; Fri, 10 May 2019 10:23:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="mUoEymcb" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727502AbfEJKXm (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 May 2019 06:23:42 -0400 Received: from mail-ot1-f68.google.com ([209.85.210.68]:46928 "EHLO mail-ot1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727374AbfEJKXk (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 May 2019 06:23:40 -0400 Received: by mail-ot1-f68.google.com with SMTP id v17so5048719otp.13 for ; Fri, 10 May 2019 03:23:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=UHZYQrU2k5/EmOsBUpLtRRAaPrXBX3oybz/yjY48P7E=; b=mUoEymcb6cW/ydz7Iyie0dwZ+NVLPbtI06YvlAIyAo0qEMmXbIXsBm02Wb6XedhbeS NtsEinZHqp2mICIzcuc3v7HkE2cu4v8XAHbmhFvE5oc4iSYD3quuD3/f9XeWQqWjA8PX 4ch+alAHSa7l+AantV05f+cM4GfuoFANXK6LWouAB4zg/LXsPHDaqHYxV0wzMhLip7Qy avCBDHinoX4lMPC9byXFSFYphBHisRSJIehBaUCJimb+UyOuv12o3ArJlKv+Mq6D1b2p 80OBMvpb9Hc8BL/1jAp1kZ+sk5DlNzRdsXTQ61TPj2or2Uz3h4BIOavZhzMjkXLR7QfO XZ0A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=UHZYQrU2k5/EmOsBUpLtRRAaPrXBX3oybz/yjY48P7E=; b=XRx07RS+xqszYE8v8uoKdKlZp/9ToDS1h337H0nRPiX1e6mptIlk7Kz9bTa2LH5Yuc ekLOkt18vKvQnRdWF1R/pu80OOKGqILevDe036+Z7FTdk8XfWhJRmKp3Nz/75mpS2N4/ V1D/AMK1PiVmExAG8l7ZG9z5ccxKq/inZE2qM/3pbVuyvvmlFBtZq7u3w6qlhH7+jxs1 oVWINdjbtvx6gV1ot3w60wo2c5M0KD7kozLDdEBfyC4UnHs2dhubIk4WYs1AReBngkuP 3h+JO6mmBbO8K9idZm7z7Rj2/DnotNv/TAbiiPnsPwWHO41GnDrTDn2ValOoXHy0gRlG GpUQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVpRCjf4V+KJxU+DzWvhVLx4iFpOTOvo4x7I6BCUrJW9q3eELr5 Sdwc8FIlnVLvrdAQirBPqpfVcnjTXy4BIUPDrBfetA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxyQguW/ut/M65VYn2cEyGSrBlsl9R9jDYGIHFrZ64T6ZIbe+20m1MzAOYQ8+zaL7BJr7rJs9TKrOuqlNGOpGY= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:640f:: with SMTP id h15mr618394otl.338.1557483818281; Fri, 10 May 2019 03:23:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190509015856.GB7031@mit.edu> <580e092f-fa4e-eedc-9e9a-a57dd085f0a6@gmail.com> <20190509032017.GA29703@mit.edu> <7fd35df81c06f6eb319223a22e7b93f29926edb9.camel@oracle.com> <20190509133551.GD29703@mit.edu> <875c546d-9713-bb59-47e4-77a1d2c69a6d@gmail.com> <20190509214233.GA20877@mit.edu> <20190509233043.GC20877@mit.edu> <8914afef-1e66-e6e3-f891-5855768d3018@deltatee.com> <6d6e91ec-33d3-830b-4895-4d7a20ba7d45@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Brendan Higgins Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 03:23:26 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/17] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework To: Daniel Vetter Cc: Knut Omang , Frank Rowand , Logan Gunthorpe , "Theodore Ts'o" , "Bird, Timothy" , Greg KH , Kees Cook , Kieran Bingham , "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Rob Herring , Stephen Boyd , Shuah Khan , devicetree , dri-devel , kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, Linux Doc Mailing List , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kbuild , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" , linux-nvdimm , linux-um@lists.infradead.org, Sasha Levin , Amir Goldstein , Dan Carpenter , Dan Williams , Jeff Dike , Joel Stanley , Julia Lawall , Kevin Hilman , Michael Ellerman , Petr Mladek , Richard Weinberger , David Rientjes , Steven Rostedt , wfg@linux.intel.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 7:49 AM Knut Omang wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2019-05-09 at 22:18 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote: > > > On 5/9/19 4:40 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2019-05-09 5:30 p.m., Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > > >> On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 04:20:05PM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> The second item, arguably, does have significant overlap with kselftest. > > > >>> Whether you are running short tests in a light weight UML environment or > > > >>> higher level tests in an heavier VM the two could be using the same > > > >>> framework for writing or defining in-kernel tests. It *may* also be valuable > > > >>> for some people to be able to run all the UML tests in the heavy VM > > > >>> environment along side other higher level tests. > > > >>> > > > >>> Looking at the selftests tree in the repo, we already have similar items to > > > >>> what Kunit is adding as I described in point (2) above. kselftest_harness.h > > > >>> contains macros like EXPECT_* and ASSERT_* with very similar intentions to > > > >>> the new KUNIT_EXECPT_* and KUNIT_ASSERT_* macros. > > > >>> > > > >>> However, the number of users of this harness appears to be quite small. Most > > > >>> of the code in the selftests tree seems to be a random mismash of scripts > > > >>> and userspace code so it's not hard to see it as something completely > > > >>> different from the new Kunit: > > > >>> > > > >>> $ git grep --files-with-matches kselftest_harness.h * > > > >> > > > >> To the extent that we can unify how tests are written, I agree that > > > >> this would be a good thing. However, you should note that > > > >> kselftest_harness.h is currently assums that it will be included in > > > >> userspace programs. This is most obviously seen if you look closely > > > >> at the functions defined in the header files which makes calls to > > > >> fork(), abort() and fprintf(). > > > > > > > > Ah, yes. I obviously did not dig deep enough. Using kunit for > > > > in-kernel tests and kselftest_harness for userspace tests seems like > > > > a sensible line to draw to me. Trying to unify kernel and userspace > > > > here sounds like it could be difficult so it's probably not worth > > > > forcing the issue unless someone wants to do some really fancy work > > > > to get it done. > > > > > > > > Based on some of the other commenters, I was under the impression > > > > that kselftests had in-kernel tests but I'm not sure where or if they > > > > exist. > > > > > > YES, kselftest has in-kernel tests. (Excuse the shouting...) > > > > > > Here is a likely list of them in the kernel source tree: > > > > > > $ grep module_init lib/test_*.c > > > lib/test_bitfield.c:module_init(test_bitfields) > > > lib/test_bitmap.c:module_init(test_bitmap_init); > > > lib/test_bpf.c:module_init(test_bpf_init); > > > lib/test_debug_virtual.c:module_init(test_debug_virtual_init); > > > lib/test_firmware.c:module_init(test_firmware_init); > > > lib/test_hash.c:module_init(test_hash_init); /* Does everything */ > > > lib/test_hexdump.c:module_init(test_hexdump_init); > > > lib/test_ida.c:module_init(ida_checks); > > > lib/test_kasan.c:module_init(kmalloc_tests_init); > > > lib/test_list_sort.c:module_init(list_sort_test); > > > lib/test_memcat_p.c:module_init(test_memcat_p_init); > > > lib/test_module.c:static int __init test_module_init(void) > > > lib/test_module.c:module_init(test_module_init); > > > lib/test_objagg.c:module_init(test_objagg_init); > > > lib/test_overflow.c:static int __init test_module_init(void) > > > lib/test_overflow.c:module_init(test_module_init); > > > lib/test_parman.c:module_init(test_parman_init); > > > lib/test_printf.c:module_init(test_printf_init); > > > lib/test_rhashtable.c:module_init(test_rht_init); > > > lib/test_siphash.c:module_init(siphash_test_init); > > > lib/test_sort.c:module_init(test_sort_init); > > > lib/test_stackinit.c:module_init(test_stackinit_init); > > > lib/test_static_key_base.c:module_init(test_static_key_base_init); > > > lib/test_static_keys.c:module_init(test_static_key_init); > > > lib/test_string.c:module_init(string_selftest_init); > > > lib/test_ubsan.c:module_init(test_ubsan_init); > > > lib/test_user_copy.c:module_init(test_user_copy_init); > > > lib/test_uuid.c:module_init(test_uuid_init); > > > lib/test_vmalloc.c:module_init(vmalloc_test_init) > > > lib/test_xarray.c:module_init(xarray_checks); > > > > > > > > > > If they do exists, it seems like it would make sense to > > > > convert those to kunit and have Kunit tests run-able in a VM or > > > > baremetal instance. > > > > > > They already run in a VM. > > > > > > They already run on bare metal. > > > > > > They already run in UML. > > > > > > This is not to say that KUnit does not make sense. But I'm still trying > > > to get a better description of the KUnit features (and there are > > > some). > > > > FYI, I have a master student who looks at converting some of these to KTF, such as for > > instance the XArray tests, which lended themselves quite good to a semi-automated > > conversion. > > > > The result is also a somewhat more compact code as well as the flexibility > > provided by the Googletest executor and the KTF frameworks, such as running selected > > tests, output formatting, debugging features etc. > > So is KTF already in upstream? Or is the plan to unify the KTF and I am not certain about KTF's upstream plans, but I assume that Knut would have CC'ed me on the thread if he had started working on it. > Kunit in-kernel test harnesses? Because there's tons of these No, no plan. Knut and I talked about this a good while ago and it seemed that we had pretty fundamentally different approaches both in terms of implementation and end goal. Combining them seemed pretty infeasible, at least from a technical perspective. Anyway, I am sure Knut would like to give him perspective on the matter and I don't want to say too much without first giving him a chance to chime in on the matter. Nevertheless, I hope you don't see resolving this as a condition for accepting this patchset. I had several rounds of RFC on KUnit, and no one had previously brought this up. > in-kernel unit tests already, and every merge we get more (Frank's > list didn't even look into drivers or anywhere else, e.g. it's missing > the locking self tests I worked on in the past), and a more structured > approach would really be good. Well, that's what I am trying to do. I hope you like it! Cheers! From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: brendanhiggins at google.com (Brendan Higgins) Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 03:23:26 -0700 Subject: [PATCH v2 00/17] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework In-Reply-To: References: <20190509015856.GB7031@mit.edu> <580e092f-fa4e-eedc-9e9a-a57dd085f0a6@gmail.com> <20190509032017.GA29703@mit.edu> <7fd35df81c06f6eb319223a22e7b93f29926edb9.camel@oracle.com> <20190509133551.GD29703@mit.edu> <875c546d-9713-bb59-47e4-77a1d2c69a6d@gmail.com> <20190509214233.GA20877@mit.edu> <20190509233043.GC20877@mit.edu> <8914afef-1e66-e6e3-f891-5855768d3018@deltatee.com> <6d6e91ec-33d3-830b-4895-4d7a20ba7d45@gmail.com> Message-ID: > On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 7:49 AM Knut Omang wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2019-05-09 at 22:18 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote: > > > On 5/9/19 4:40 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2019-05-09 5:30 p.m., Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > > >> On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 04:20:05PM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> The second item, arguably, does have significant overlap with kselftest. > > > >>> Whether you are running short tests in a light weight UML environment or > > > >>> higher level tests in an heavier VM the two could be using the same > > > >>> framework for writing or defining in-kernel tests. It *may* also be valuable > > > >>> for some people to be able to run all the UML tests in the heavy VM > > > >>> environment along side other higher level tests. > > > >>> > > > >>> Looking at the selftests tree in the repo, we already have similar items to > > > >>> what Kunit is adding as I described in point (2) above. kselftest_harness.h > > > >>> contains macros like EXPECT_* and ASSERT_* with very similar intentions to > > > >>> the new KUNIT_EXECPT_* and KUNIT_ASSERT_* macros. > > > >>> > > > >>> However, the number of users of this harness appears to be quite small. Most > > > >>> of the code in the selftests tree seems to be a random mismash of scripts > > > >>> and userspace code so it's not hard to see it as something completely > > > >>> different from the new Kunit: > > > >>> > > > >>> $ git grep --files-with-matches kselftest_harness.h * > > > >> > > > >> To the extent that we can unify how tests are written, I agree that > > > >> this would be a good thing. However, you should note that > > > >> kselftest_harness.h is currently assums that it will be included in > > > >> userspace programs. This is most obviously seen if you look closely > > > >> at the functions defined in the header files which makes calls to > > > >> fork(), abort() and fprintf(). > > > > > > > > Ah, yes. I obviously did not dig deep enough. Using kunit for > > > > in-kernel tests and kselftest_harness for userspace tests seems like > > > > a sensible line to draw to me. Trying to unify kernel and userspace > > > > here sounds like it could be difficult so it's probably not worth > > > > forcing the issue unless someone wants to do some really fancy work > > > > to get it done. > > > > > > > > Based on some of the other commenters, I was under the impression > > > > that kselftests had in-kernel tests but I'm not sure where or if they > > > > exist. > > > > > > YES, kselftest has in-kernel tests. (Excuse the shouting...) > > > > > > Here is a likely list of them in the kernel source tree: > > > > > > $ grep module_init lib/test_*.c > > > lib/test_bitfield.c:module_init(test_bitfields) > > > lib/test_bitmap.c:module_init(test_bitmap_init); > > > lib/test_bpf.c:module_init(test_bpf_init); > > > lib/test_debug_virtual.c:module_init(test_debug_virtual_init); > > > lib/test_firmware.c:module_init(test_firmware_init); > > > lib/test_hash.c:module_init(test_hash_init); /* Does everything */ > > > lib/test_hexdump.c:module_init(test_hexdump_init); > > > lib/test_ida.c:module_init(ida_checks); > > > lib/test_kasan.c:module_init(kmalloc_tests_init); > > > lib/test_list_sort.c:module_init(list_sort_test); > > > lib/test_memcat_p.c:module_init(test_memcat_p_init); > > > lib/test_module.c:static int __init test_module_init(void) > > > lib/test_module.c:module_init(test_module_init); > > > lib/test_objagg.c:module_init(test_objagg_init); > > > lib/test_overflow.c:static int __init test_module_init(void) > > > lib/test_overflow.c:module_init(test_module_init); > > > lib/test_parman.c:module_init(test_parman_init); > > > lib/test_printf.c:module_init(test_printf_init); > > > lib/test_rhashtable.c:module_init(test_rht_init); > > > lib/test_siphash.c:module_init(siphash_test_init); > > > lib/test_sort.c:module_init(test_sort_init); > > > lib/test_stackinit.c:module_init(test_stackinit_init); > > > lib/test_static_key_base.c:module_init(test_static_key_base_init); > > > lib/test_static_keys.c:module_init(test_static_key_init); > > > lib/test_string.c:module_init(string_selftest_init); > > > lib/test_ubsan.c:module_init(test_ubsan_init); > > > lib/test_user_copy.c:module_init(test_user_copy_init); > > > lib/test_uuid.c:module_init(test_uuid_init); > > > lib/test_vmalloc.c:module_init(vmalloc_test_init) > > > lib/test_xarray.c:module_init(xarray_checks); > > > > > > > > > > If they do exists, it seems like it would make sense to > > > > convert those to kunit and have Kunit tests run-able in a VM or > > > > baremetal instance. > > > > > > They already run in a VM. > > > > > > They already run on bare metal. > > > > > > They already run in UML. > > > > > > This is not to say that KUnit does not make sense. But I'm still trying > > > to get a better description of the KUnit features (and there are > > > some). > > > > FYI, I have a master student who looks at converting some of these to KTF, such as for > > instance the XArray tests, which lended themselves quite good to a semi-automated > > conversion. > > > > The result is also a somewhat more compact code as well as the flexibility > > provided by the Googletest executor and the KTF frameworks, such as running selected > > tests, output formatting, debugging features etc. > > So is KTF already in upstream? Or is the plan to unify the KTF and I am not certain about KTF's upstream plans, but I assume that Knut would have CC'ed me on the thread if he had started working on it. > Kunit in-kernel test harnesses? Because there's tons of these No, no plan. Knut and I talked about this a good while ago and it seemed that we had pretty fundamentally different approaches both in terms of implementation and end goal. Combining them seemed pretty infeasible, at least from a technical perspective. Anyway, I am sure Knut would like to give him perspective on the matter and I don't want to say too much without first giving him a chance to chime in on the matter. Nevertheless, I hope you don't see resolving this as a condition for accepting this patchset. I had several rounds of RFC on KUnit, and no one had previously brought this up. > in-kernel unit tests already, and every merge we get more (Frank's > list didn't even look into drivers or anywhere else, e.g. it's missing > the locking self tests I worked on in the past), and a more structured > approach would really be good. Well, that's what I am trying to do. I hope you like it! Cheers! From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: brendanhiggins@google.com (Brendan Higgins) Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 03:23:26 -0700 Subject: [PATCH v2 00/17] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework In-Reply-To: References: <20190509015856.GB7031@mit.edu> <580e092f-fa4e-eedc-9e9a-a57dd085f0a6@gmail.com> <20190509032017.GA29703@mit.edu> <7fd35df81c06f6eb319223a22e7b93f29926edb9.camel@oracle.com> <20190509133551.GD29703@mit.edu> <875c546d-9713-bb59-47e4-77a1d2c69a6d@gmail.com> <20190509214233.GA20877@mit.edu> <20190509233043.GC20877@mit.edu> <8914afef-1e66-e6e3-f891-5855768d3018@deltatee.com> <6d6e91ec-33d3-830b-4895-4d7a20ba7d45@gmail.com> Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Message-ID: <20190510102326.onopH_JRqK0zwmZI_cd1UcDEhYnHk4fseZlAAQ0iy1k@z> > On Fri, May 10, 2019@7:49 AM Knut Omang wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2019-05-09@22:18 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote: > > > On 5/9/19 4:40 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2019-05-09 5:30 p.m., Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > > >> On Thu, May 09, 2019@04:20:05PM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> The second item, arguably, does have significant overlap with kselftest. > > > >>> Whether you are running short tests in a light weight UML environment or > > > >>> higher level tests in an heavier VM the two could be using the same > > > >>> framework for writing or defining in-kernel tests. It *may* also be valuable > > > >>> for some people to be able to run all the UML tests in the heavy VM > > > >>> environment along side other higher level tests. > > > >>> > > > >>> Looking at the selftests tree in the repo, we already have similar items to > > > >>> what Kunit is adding as I described in point (2) above. kselftest_harness.h > > > >>> contains macros like EXPECT_* and ASSERT_* with very similar intentions to > > > >>> the new KUNIT_EXECPT_* and KUNIT_ASSERT_* macros. > > > >>> > > > >>> However, the number of users of this harness appears to be quite small. Most > > > >>> of the code in the selftests tree seems to be a random mismash of scripts > > > >>> and userspace code so it's not hard to see it as something completely > > > >>> different from the new Kunit: > > > >>> > > > >>> $ git grep --files-with-matches kselftest_harness.h * > > > >> > > > >> To the extent that we can unify how tests are written, I agree that > > > >> this would be a good thing. However, you should note that > > > >> kselftest_harness.h is currently assums that it will be included in > > > >> userspace programs. This is most obviously seen if you look closely > > > >> at the functions defined in the header files which makes calls to > > > >> fork(), abort() and fprintf(). > > > > > > > > Ah, yes. I obviously did not dig deep enough. Using kunit for > > > > in-kernel tests and kselftest_harness for userspace tests seems like > > > > a sensible line to draw to me. Trying to unify kernel and userspace > > > > here sounds like it could be difficult so it's probably not worth > > > > forcing the issue unless someone wants to do some really fancy work > > > > to get it done. > > > > > > > > Based on some of the other commenters, I was under the impression > > > > that kselftests had in-kernel tests but I'm not sure where or if they > > > > exist. > > > > > > YES, kselftest has in-kernel tests. (Excuse the shouting...) > > > > > > Here is a likely list of them in the kernel source tree: > > > > > > $ grep module_init lib/test_*.c > > > lib/test_bitfield.c:module_init(test_bitfields) > > > lib/test_bitmap.c:module_init(test_bitmap_init); > > > lib/test_bpf.c:module_init(test_bpf_init); > > > lib/test_debug_virtual.c:module_init(test_debug_virtual_init); > > > lib/test_firmware.c:module_init(test_firmware_init); > > > lib/test_hash.c:module_init(test_hash_init); /* Does everything */ > > > lib/test_hexdump.c:module_init(test_hexdump_init); > > > lib/test_ida.c:module_init(ida_checks); > > > lib/test_kasan.c:module_init(kmalloc_tests_init); > > > lib/test_list_sort.c:module_init(list_sort_test); > > > lib/test_memcat_p.c:module_init(test_memcat_p_init); > > > lib/test_module.c:static int __init test_module_init(void) > > > lib/test_module.c:module_init(test_module_init); > > > lib/test_objagg.c:module_init(test_objagg_init); > > > lib/test_overflow.c:static int __init test_module_init(void) > > > lib/test_overflow.c:module_init(test_module_init); > > > lib/test_parman.c:module_init(test_parman_init); > > > lib/test_printf.c:module_init(test_printf_init); > > > lib/test_rhashtable.c:module_init(test_rht_init); > > > lib/test_siphash.c:module_init(siphash_test_init); > > > lib/test_sort.c:module_init(test_sort_init); > > > lib/test_stackinit.c:module_init(test_stackinit_init); > > > lib/test_static_key_base.c:module_init(test_static_key_base_init); > > > lib/test_static_keys.c:module_init(test_static_key_init); > > > lib/test_string.c:module_init(string_selftest_init); > > > lib/test_ubsan.c:module_init(test_ubsan_init); > > > lib/test_user_copy.c:module_init(test_user_copy_init); > > > lib/test_uuid.c:module_init(test_uuid_init); > > > lib/test_vmalloc.c:module_init(vmalloc_test_init) > > > lib/test_xarray.c:module_init(xarray_checks); > > > > > > > > > > If they do exists, it seems like it would make sense to > > > > convert those to kunit and have Kunit tests run-able in a VM or > > > > baremetal instance. > > > > > > They already run in a VM. > > > > > > They already run on bare metal. > > > > > > They already run in UML. > > > > > > This is not to say that KUnit does not make sense. But I'm still trying > > > to get a better description of the KUnit features (and there are > > > some). > > > > FYI, I have a master student who looks at converting some of these to KTF, such as for > > instance the XArray tests, which lended themselves quite good to a semi-automated > > conversion. > > > > The result is also a somewhat more compact code as well as the flexibility > > provided by the Googletest executor and the KTF frameworks, such as running selected > > tests, output formatting, debugging features etc. > > So is KTF already in upstream? Or is the plan to unify the KTF and I am not certain about KTF's upstream plans, but I assume that Knut would have CC'ed me on the thread if he had started working on it. > Kunit in-kernel test harnesses? Because there's tons of these No, no plan. Knut and I talked about this a good while ago and it seemed that we had pretty fundamentally different approaches both in terms of implementation and end goal. Combining them seemed pretty infeasible, at least from a technical perspective. Anyway, I am sure Knut would like to give him perspective on the matter and I don't want to say too much without first giving him a chance to chime in on the matter. Nevertheless, I hope you don't see resolving this as a condition for accepting this patchset. I had several rounds of RFC on KUnit, and no one had previously brought this up. > in-kernel unit tests already, and every merge we get more (Frank's > list didn't even look into drivers or anywhere else, e.g. it's missing > the locking self tests I worked on in the past), and a more structured > approach would really be good. Well, that's what I am trying to do. I hope you like it! Cheers! From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ot1-f65.google.com ([209.85.210.65]:37170 "EHLO mail-ot1-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727341AbfEJKXj (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 May 2019 06:23:39 -0400 Received: by mail-ot1-f65.google.com with SMTP id r10so4370708otd.4 for ; Fri, 10 May 2019 03:23:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190509015856.GB7031@mit.edu> <580e092f-fa4e-eedc-9e9a-a57dd085f0a6@gmail.com> <20190509032017.GA29703@mit.edu> <7fd35df81c06f6eb319223a22e7b93f29926edb9.camel@oracle.com> <20190509133551.GD29703@mit.edu> <875c546d-9713-bb59-47e4-77a1d2c69a6d@gmail.com> <20190509214233.GA20877@mit.edu> <20190509233043.GC20877@mit.edu> <8914afef-1e66-e6e3-f891-5855768d3018@deltatee.com> <6d6e91ec-33d3-830b-4895-4d7a20ba7d45@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Brendan Higgins Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 03:23:26 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/17] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kbuild-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Daniel Vetter Cc: Knut Omang , Frank Rowand , Logan Gunthorpe , Theodore Ts'o , "Bird, Timothy" , Greg KH , Kees Cook , Kieran Bingham , "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Rob Herring , Stephen Boyd , Shuah Khan , devicetree , dri-devel , kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, Linux Doc Mailing List , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kbuild , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" , linux-nvdimm , linux-um@lists.infradead.org, Sasha Levin , Amir Goldstein , Dan Carpenter , Dan Williams , Jeff Dike , Joel Stanley , Julia Lawall , Kevin Hilman , Michael Ellerman , Petr Mladek , Richard Weinberger , David Rientjes , Steven Rostedt , wfg@linux.intel.com > On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 7:49 AM Knut Omang wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2019-05-09 at 22:18 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote: > > > On 5/9/19 4:40 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2019-05-09 5:30 p.m., Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > > >> On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 04:20:05PM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> The second item, arguably, does have significant overlap with kselftest. > > > >>> Whether you are running short tests in a light weight UML environment or > > > >>> higher level tests in an heavier VM the two could be using the same > > > >>> framework for writing or defining in-kernel tests. It *may* also be valuable > > > >>> for some people to be able to run all the UML tests in the heavy VM > > > >>> environment along side other higher level tests. > > > >>> > > > >>> Looking at the selftests tree in the repo, we already have similar items to > > > >>> what Kunit is adding as I described in point (2) above. kselftest_harness.h > > > >>> contains macros like EXPECT_* and ASSERT_* with very similar intentions to > > > >>> the new KUNIT_EXECPT_* and KUNIT_ASSERT_* macros. > > > >>> > > > >>> However, the number of users of this harness appears to be quite small. Most > > > >>> of the code in the selftests tree seems to be a random mismash of scripts > > > >>> and userspace code so it's not hard to see it as something completely > > > >>> different from the new Kunit: > > > >>> > > > >>> $ git grep --files-with-matches kselftest_harness.h * > > > >> > > > >> To the extent that we can unify how tests are written, I agree that > > > >> this would be a good thing. However, you should note that > > > >> kselftest_harness.h is currently assums that it will be included in > > > >> userspace programs. This is most obviously seen if you look closely > > > >> at the functions defined in the header files which makes calls to > > > >> fork(), abort() and fprintf(). > > > > > > > > Ah, yes. I obviously did not dig deep enough. Using kunit for > > > > in-kernel tests and kselftest_harness for userspace tests seems like > > > > a sensible line to draw to me. Trying to unify kernel and userspace > > > > here sounds like it could be difficult so it's probably not worth > > > > forcing the issue unless someone wants to do some really fancy work > > > > to get it done. > > > > > > > > Based on some of the other commenters, I was under the impression > > > > that kselftests had in-kernel tests but I'm not sure where or if they > > > > exist. > > > > > > YES, kselftest has in-kernel tests. (Excuse the shouting...) > > > > > > Here is a likely list of them in the kernel source tree: > > > > > > $ grep module_init lib/test_*.c > > > lib/test_bitfield.c:module_init(test_bitfields) > > > lib/test_bitmap.c:module_init(test_bitmap_init); > > > lib/test_bpf.c:module_init(test_bpf_init); > > > lib/test_debug_virtual.c:module_init(test_debug_virtual_init); > > > lib/test_firmware.c:module_init(test_firmware_init); > > > lib/test_hash.c:module_init(test_hash_init); /* Does everything */ > > > lib/test_hexdump.c:module_init(test_hexdump_init); > > > lib/test_ida.c:module_init(ida_checks); > > > lib/test_kasan.c:module_init(kmalloc_tests_init); > > > lib/test_list_sort.c:module_init(list_sort_test); > > > lib/test_memcat_p.c:module_init(test_memcat_p_init); > > > lib/test_module.c:static int __init test_module_init(void) > > > lib/test_module.c:module_init(test_module_init); > > > lib/test_objagg.c:module_init(test_objagg_init); > > > lib/test_overflow.c:static int __init test_module_init(void) > > > lib/test_overflow.c:module_init(test_module_init); > > > lib/test_parman.c:module_init(test_parman_init); > > > lib/test_printf.c:module_init(test_printf_init); > > > lib/test_rhashtable.c:module_init(test_rht_init); > > > lib/test_siphash.c:module_init(siphash_test_init); > > > lib/test_sort.c:module_init(test_sort_init); > > > lib/test_stackinit.c:module_init(test_stackinit_init); > > > lib/test_static_key_base.c:module_init(test_static_key_base_init); > > > lib/test_static_keys.c:module_init(test_static_key_init); > > > lib/test_string.c:module_init(string_selftest_init); > > > lib/test_ubsan.c:module_init(test_ubsan_init); > > > lib/test_user_copy.c:module_init(test_user_copy_init); > > > lib/test_uuid.c:module_init(test_uuid_init); > > > lib/test_vmalloc.c:module_init(vmalloc_test_init) > > > lib/test_xarray.c:module_init(xarray_checks); > > > > > > > > > > If they do exists, it seems like it would make sense to > > > > convert those to kunit and have Kunit tests run-able in a VM or > > > > baremetal instance. > > > > > > They already run in a VM. > > > > > > They already run on bare metal. > > > > > > They already run in UML. > > > > > > This is not to say that KUnit does not make sense. But I'm still trying > > > to get a better description of the KUnit features (and there are > > > some). > > > > FYI, I have a master student who looks at converting some of these to KTF, such as for > > instance the XArray tests, which lended themselves quite good to a semi-automated > > conversion. > > > > The result is also a somewhat more compact code as well as the flexibility > > provided by the Googletest executor and the KTF frameworks, such as running selected > > tests, output formatting, debugging features etc. > > So is KTF already in upstream? Or is the plan to unify the KTF and I am not certain about KTF's upstream plans, but I assume that Knut would have CC'ed me on the thread if he had started working on it. > Kunit in-kernel test harnesses? Because there's tons of these No, no plan. Knut and I talked about this a good while ago and it seemed that we had pretty fundamentally different approaches both in terms of implementation and end goal. Combining them seemed pretty infeasible, at least from a technical perspective. Anyway, I am sure Knut would like to give him perspective on the matter and I don't want to say too much without first giving him a chance to chime in on the matter. Nevertheless, I hope you don't see resolving this as a condition for accepting this patchset. I had several rounds of RFC on KUnit, and no one had previously brought this up. > in-kernel unit tests already, and every merge we get more (Frank's > list didn't even look into drivers or anywhere else, e.g. it's missing > the locking self tests I worked on in the past), and a more structured > approach would really be good. Well, that's what I am trying to do. I hope you like it! Cheers!