archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: shuah <>
To: Knut Omang <>,
	Luis Chamberlain <>,
	Brendan Higgins <>
	Alan Maguire <>, shuah <>
Subject: Re: Plan for hybrid testing
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 13:01:54 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On 10/14/19 12:38 PM, Knut Omang wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 10:42 +0000, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 02:02:47PM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>> Hey Knut and Shuah,
>>> Following up on our offline discussion on Wednesday night:
>>> We decided that it would make sense for Knut to try to implement Hybrid
>>> Testing (testing that crosses the kernel userspace boundary) that he
>>> introduced here[1] on top of the existing KUnit infrastructure.
>>> We discussed several possible things in the kernel that Knut could test
>>> with the new Hybrid Testing feature as an initial example. Those were
>>> (in reverse order of expected difficulty):
>>> 1. RDS (Reliable Datagram Sockets) - We decided that, although this was
>>>     one of the more complicated subsystems to work with, it was probably
>>>     the best candidate for Knut to start with because it was in desperate
>>>     need of better testing, much of the testing would require crossing
>>>     the kernel userspace boundary to be effective, and Knut has access to
>>>     RDS (since he works at Oracle).

Any update on if you are able to explore this work.

>>> 2. KMOD - Probably much simpler than RDS, and the maintainer, Luis
>>>     Chamberlain (CC'ed) would like to see better testing here, but
>>>     probably still not as good as RDS because it is in less dire need of
>>>     testing, collaboration on this would be more difficult, and Luis is
>>>     currently on an extended vacation. Luis and I had already been
>>>     discussing testing KMOD here[2].
>> I'm back!
>> I'm also happy and thrilled to help review the infrastructure in great
>> detail given I have lofty future objectives with testing in the kernel.
>> Also, kmod is a bit more complex to test, if Knut wants a simpler *easy*
>> target I think test_sysctl.c would be a good target. I think the goal
>> there would be to add probes for a few of the sysctl callers, and then
>> test them through userspace somehow, for instance?
> That sounds like a good case for the hybrid tests.
> The challenge in a kunit setting would be that it relies on a significant part of KTF
> to work as we have used it so far:
> - module support - Alan has been working on this

I see the patches. Thanks for working on this.

> - netlink approach from KTF (to allow user space execution of kernel
>    part of test, and gathering reporting in one place)
> - probe infrastructure
>> The complexities with testing kmod is the threading aspect. So that is
>> more of a challenge for a test infrastructure as a whole. However kmod
>> also already has a pretty sound kthread solution which could be used
>> as basis for any sound kernel multithread test solution.
>> Curious, what was decided with the regards to the generic netlink approach?

Can this work be be done without netlink approach? At least some of it.
I would like to see some patches and would like to get a better feel
for the dependency on generic netlink.

> I think in some way functionality similar to the netlink support is needed
> for the features in KTF that we discussed, so I get it is a "yes" to add
> support for it?

See above.

-- Shuah

  reply	other threads:[~2019-10-14 19:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-09-13 21:02 Plan for hybrid testing Brendan Higgins
2019-09-16 16:20 ` shuah
2019-10-14 10:42 ` Luis Chamberlain
2019-10-14 18:38   ` Knut Omang
2019-10-14 19:01     ` shuah [this message]
2019-10-16 10:52       ` Knut Omang
2019-10-16 13:08         ` Luis Chamberlain
2019-10-17 17:46           ` Knut Omang
2019-10-17 19:11             ` shuah
2019-10-18  9:47             ` Luis Chamberlain
2019-10-18 18:35               ` Brendan Higgins
2019-10-18 19:22                 ` Luis Chamberlain
2019-10-18 19:58                   ` Brendan Higgins
2019-10-19 18:44                     ` Luis Chamberlain
2019-10-18 21:42           ` shuah

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).