From: Daniel Latypov <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Herbert Xu <email@example.com>
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com,
Subject: Re: [RFC v1 1/2] crypto: tcrypt: minimal conversion to run under KUnit
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:31:28 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGS_qxqOD+Bcvy7xti7_eg8+H1cJcfp94BtnRhuzijDcaGF_uA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 11:43 PM Herbert Xu <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 02:31:37PM -0700, Daniel Latypov wrote:
> >> == Questions ==
> > * does this seem like it would make running the test easier?
> I don't mind. tcrypt these days isn't used so much for correctness
> testing. It's mostly being used for speed testing. A secondary
> use is to instantiate templates.
Thanks, that makes a lot of sense.
In that case, how useful would `kunit.py run` be? I.e. Do people
mostly want to see numbers on bare metal?
The default mode of `kunit.py run` is to use ARCH=um.
I assume (for at least most of the library-type crypto code) it should
have the same performance characteristics, but that might not be the
case. I can try and get some numbers on that.
There's an option to make `kunit.py run` use ARCH=86_64, but it'll be
in a QEMU VM, so again there's some performance overhead.
If either option seems useful, then perhaps a minimal patch like this
would be beneficial.
I can make it even smaller and less intrusive by restoring the "ret +=
..." code and having a single `KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, ret, 0, "at
least one test case failed")` at the very end.
It does not sound like patch #2 or any future attempts to try and make
use of KUnit features is necessarily worth it, if correctness testing
isn't really the goal of tcrypt.c anymore.
> > * does `tvmem` actually need page-aligned buffers?
> I think it may be needed for those split-SG test cases where
> we deliberately create a buffer that straddles a page boundary.
> > * I have no clue how FIPS intersects with all of this.
> It doesn't really matter because in FIPS mode when a correctness
> test fails the kernel panics.
> > * would it be fine to leave the test code built-in for FIPS instead of
> > returning -EAGAIN?
> The returning -EAGAIN is irrelevant in FIPS mode. It's more of
> an aid in normal mode when you use tcrypt for speed testing.
> Email: Herbert Xu <email@example.com>
> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
> PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-23 19:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-07-15 21:31 [RFC v1 0/2] crypto: tcrypt: small changes to run under KUnit Daniel Latypov
2021-07-15 21:31 ` [RFC v1 1/2] crypto: tcrypt: minimal conversion " Daniel Latypov
2021-07-23 6:43 ` Herbert Xu
2021-07-23 19:31 ` Daniel Latypov [this message]
2021-07-30 2:55 ` Herbert Xu
2021-07-30 5:33 ` David Gow
2021-07-15 21:31 ` [RFC v1 2/2] crypto: tcrypt: call KUNIT_FAIL() instead of pr_err() Daniel Latypov
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).