archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Gow <>
To: Brendan Higgins <>,
	Daniel Latypov <>,
	Kees Cook <>,
	Shuah Khan <>
Cc: David Gow <>,
	Steven Rostedt <>,,,
Subject: [RFC PATCH 0/2] kunit: Support redirecting function calls
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2022 10:13:12 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)

When writing tests, it'd often be very useful to be able to intercept
calls to a function in the code being tested and replace it with a
test-specific stub. This has always been an obviously missing piece of
KUnit, and the solutions always involve some tradeoffs with cleanliness,
performance, or impact on non-test code. See the folowing document for
some of the challenges:

This series consists of two prototype patches which add support for this
sort of redirection to KUnit tests:

1: static_stub: Any function which might want to be intercepted adds a
call to a macro which checks if a test has redirected calls to it, and
calls the corresponding replacement.

2: ftrace_stub: Functions are intercepted using ftrace and livepatch.
This doesn't require adding a new prologue to each function being
replaced, but does have more dependencies (which restricts it to a small
number of architectures, not including UML), and doesn't work well with
inline functions.

The API for both implementations is very similar, so it should be easy
to migrate from one to the other if necessary.  Both of these
implementations restrict the redirection to the test context: it is
automatically undone after the KUnit test completes, and does not affect
calls in other threads. If CONFIG_KUNIT is not enabled, there should be
no overhead in either implementation.

Does either (or both) of these features sound useful, and is this
sort-of API the right model? (Personally, I think there's a reasonable
scope for both.) Is anything obviously missing or wrong? Do the names,
descriptions etc. make any sense?

Note that these patches are definitely still at the "prototype" level,
and things like error-handling, documentation, and testing are still
pretty sparse. There is also quite a bit of room for optimisation.
These'll all be improved for v1 if the concept seems good.

-- David

Daniel Latypov (1):
  kunit: expose ftrace-based API for stubbing out functions during tests

David Gow (1):
  kunit: Expose 'static stub' API to redirect functions

 include/kunit/ftrace_stub.h         |  84 +++++++++++++++++
 include/kunit/static_stub.h         | 106 +++++++++++++++++++++
 lib/kunit/Kconfig                   |  11 +++
 lib/kunit/Makefile                  |   5 +
 lib/kunit/ftrace_stub.c             | 138 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c      |  64 +++++++++++++
 lib/kunit/static_stub.c             | 125 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
 lib/kunit/stubs_example.kunitconfig |  11 +++
 8 files changed, 544 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 include/kunit/ftrace_stub.h
 create mode 100644 include/kunit/static_stub.h
 create mode 100644 lib/kunit/ftrace_stub.c
 create mode 100644 lib/kunit/static_stub.c
 create mode 100644 lib/kunit/stubs_example.kunitconfig


             reply	other threads:[~2022-03-18  2:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-03-18  2:13 David Gow [this message]
2022-03-18  2:13 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] kunit: Expose 'static stub' API to redirect functions David Gow
2022-04-04 20:16   ` Brendan Higgins
2022-04-15 22:05     ` Steve Muckle
2022-05-04 20:35   ` Daniel Latypov
2022-05-04 20:42     ` Brendan Higgins
2022-05-04 21:16       ` Daniel Latypov
2022-03-18  2:13 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] kunit: expose ftrace-based API for stubbing out functions during tests David Gow
2022-04-04 20:17   ` Brendan Higgins
2022-04-04 21:13   ` Daniel Latypov
2022-03-18 13:21 ` [RFC PATCH 0/2] kunit: Support redirecting function calls Steven Rostedt
2022-04-04 20:13   ` Brendan Higgins
2022-04-15 21:43     ` Steve Muckle
2022-04-15 21:44       ` Steve Muckle
2022-04-04 20:14 ` 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:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* 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).