From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Cc: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>,
Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@oracle.com>,
Matthias Maennich <maennich@google.com>, shuah <shuah@kernel.org>,
John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>,
jmorris@namei.org, serge@hallyn.com,
Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@google.com>,
David Gow <davidgow@google.com>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
KUnit Development <kunit-dev@googlegroups.com>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
Mike Salvatore <mike.salvatore@canonical.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-kselftest/test v1] apparmor: add AppArmor KUnit tests for policy unpack
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 12:09:40 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201910301205.74EC2A226D@keescook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191024101529.GK11244@42.do-not-panic.com>
On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 10:15:29AM +0000, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 05:42:18PM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > With that, I think the best solution in this case will be the
> > "__visible_for_testing" route. It has no overhead when testing is
> > turned off (in fact it is no different in anyway when testing is
> > turned off). The downsides I see are:
> >
> > 1) You may not be able to test non-module code not compiled for
> > testing later with the test modules that Alan is working on (But the
> > only way I think that will work is by preventing the symbol from being
> > inlined, right?).
> >
> > 2) I think "__visible_for_testing" will be prone to abuse. Here, I
> > think there are reasons why we might want to expose these symbols for
> > testing, but not otherwise. Nevertheless, I think most symbols that
> > should be tested should probably be made visible by default. Since you
> > usually only want to test your public interfaces. I could very well
> > see this getting used as a kludge that gets used far too frequently.
>
> There are two parts to your statement on 2):
>
> a) possible abuse of say __visible_for_testing
I really don't like the idea of littering the kernel with these. It'll
also require chunks in header files wrapped in #ifdefs. This is really
ugly.
> b) you typically only want to test your public interfaces
True, but being able to test the little helper functions is a nice
starting point and a good building block.
Why can't unit tests live with the code they're testing? They're already
logically tied together; what's the harm there? This needn't be the case
for ALL tests, etc. The test driver could still live externally. The
test in the other .c would just have exported functions... ?
--
Kees Cook
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-30 19:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-18 0:18 [PATCH linux-kselftest/test v1] apparmor: add AppArmor KUnit tests for policy unpack Brendan Higgins
2019-10-18 0:33 ` Iurii Zaikin
2019-10-30 18:59 ` Kees Cook
2019-11-06 0:35 ` Brendan Higgins
2019-11-06 0:37 ` Brendan Higgins
2019-10-18 0:43 ` Brendan Higgins
2019-10-18 16:25 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2019-10-18 21:41 ` Brendan Higgins
2019-10-30 19:02 ` Kees Cook
2019-10-31 9:01 ` Brendan Higgins
2019-10-18 12:29 ` Luis Chamberlain
2019-10-19 12:56 ` Alan Maguire
2019-10-19 18:36 ` Luis Chamberlain
2019-10-24 0:42 ` Brendan Higgins
2019-10-24 10:15 ` Luis Chamberlain
2019-10-30 19:09 ` Kees Cook [this message]
2019-10-30 20:11 ` Iurii Zaikin
2019-10-31 1:40 ` John Johansen
2019-10-31 9:33 ` Brendan Higgins
2019-10-31 18:40 ` Kees Cook
2019-11-05 16:43 ` Mike Salvatore
2019-11-05 23:59 ` Brendan Higgins
2019-10-31 1:37 ` John Johansen
2019-10-31 9:17 ` Brendan Higgins
2019-11-01 12:30 ` Alan Maguire
2019-11-05 23:44 ` Brendan Higgins
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201910301205.74EC2A226D@keescook \
--to=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=alan.maguire@oracle.com \
--cc=brendanhiggins@google.com \
--cc=davidgow@google.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=john.johansen@canonical.com \
--cc=kunit-dev@googlegroups.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maennich@google.com \
--cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
--cc=mike.salvatore@canonical.com \
--cc=serge@hallyn.com \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=yzaikin@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).