On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 9:09 AM Kees Cook keescook@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 02:57:12PM -0800, Daniel Latypov wrote:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 2:42 PM Kees Cook keescook@chromium.org wrote:
Convert overflow unit tests to KUnit, for better integration into the kernel self test framework. Includes a rename of test_overflow.c to overflow_kunit.c, and CONFIG_TEST_OVERFLOW to CONFIG_OVERFLOW_KUNIT_TEST.
$ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py config ... $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run overflow
JFYI, you can run this as a one-liner via
$ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig /dev/stdin <<EOF CONFIG_KUNIT=y CONFIG_TEST_OVERFLOW=y EOF
The above is taken from my own duplicate version of this patch [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20210503211536.1384578-1-dlatypov@go...
Ah-ha! I thought I remembered this conversion being proposed before but I totally failed to find it. Thank you! I'll compare/adjust this patch and add you as Co-developed-by.
There's a lot that's already identical line for line. I think I pointed to all the places where they differed in any meaningful way down below. So you can probably save yourself the time of looking over.
And yeah, I vaguely remembered that Vitor had worked on it, but somehow failed to find that as well. Something about this test :)
... [14:33:51] Starting KUnit Kernel (1/1)... [14:33:51] ============================================================ [14:33:51] ================== overflow (11 subtests) ================== [14:33:51] [PASSED] u8_overflow_test [14:33:51] [PASSED] s8_overflow_test [14:33:51] [PASSED] u16_overflow_test [14:33:51] [PASSED] s16_overflow_test [14:33:51] [PASSED] u32_overflow_test [14:33:51] [PASSED] s32_overflow_test [14:33:51] [PASSED] u64_overflow_test [14:33:51] [PASSED] s64_overflow_test [14:33:51] [PASSED] overflow_shift_test [14:33:51] [PASSED] overflow_allocation_test [14:33:51] [PASSED] overflow_size_helpers_test [14:33:51] ==================== [PASSED] overflow ===================== [14:33:51] ============================================================ [14:33:51] Testing complete. Passed: 11, Failed: 0, Crashed: 0, Skipped: 0, Errors: 0 [14:33:51] Elapsed time: 12.525s total, 0.001s configuring, 12.402s building, 0.101s running
Cc: David Gow davidgow@google.com Cc: Vitor Massaru Iha vitor@massaru.org Cc: Rasmus Villemoes linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk Cc: Nick Desaulniers ndesaulniers@google.com Co-developed-by: Vitor Massaru Iha vitor@massaru.org Signed-off-by: Vitor Massaru Iha vitor@massaru.org Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200720224418.200495-1-vitor@massaru.org/ Signed-off-by: Kees Cook keescook@chromium.org
Reviewed-by: Daniel Latypov dlatypov@google.com
Looks good to me, some minor nits/suggestions wrt KUnit usage. Nice to see this test converted over!
Thanks!
[...]
index f6530fce799d..4cc27b9926a1 100644 --- a/lib/test_overflow.c +++ b/lib/overflow_kunit.c @@ -1,9 +1,13 @@ // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR MIT /*
- Test cases for arithmetic overflow checks.
- Test cases for arithmetic overflow checks. See:
./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py config*/
./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run overflow [--raw_output]#define pr_fmt(fmt) KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt
We can drop the pr_fmt now, I think
My instinct is to leave these in place just so that anything weird that gets inlined and sneaks a pr_*() call into the code will have a meaningful prefix.
Ack, sounds good. We've historically dropped it and assumed we'd use kunit_info() for all the pr_*()'s we cared about.
But there's definitely concern that some macro might use it to print an important and relevant message, hmm.