Hello Brendan,
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 04:33:15 +0900,
Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > +int lkl_test_read(void)
> > +{
> > + char buf[10] = { 0, };
> > + long ret;
> > +
> > + ret = lkl_sys_read(0, buf, sizeof(buf));
> > +
> > + lkl_test_logf("lkl_sys_read=%ld buf=%s\n", ret, buf);
> > +
> > + if (ret == sizeof(wrbuf) && !strcmp(wrbuf, buf))
> > + return TEST_SUCCESS;
> > +
> > + return TEST_FAILURE;
> > +}
>
> These tests make me think that LKL could be very useful for KUnit and
> testing syscalls.
>
> Luis and I had been talking about writing KUnit tests for syscalls to
> validate that syscalls conform to the expected behavior; however,
> calling syscalls from the kernel obviously has issues.
>
> On the other hand, testing syscalls from a userspace on a booted kernel
> is something that we do and something that needs to be done; however,
> this too has some issues. Writing and running tests in userspace on a
> booted kernel is not as easy as being able to write and run tests in the
> kernel. Also, even though some syscall end-to-end tests are necessary,
> not all syscall tests must be end-to-end tests, especially those which
> are only trying to exercise the entire syscall contract.
>
> I think it looks like LKL might be able to help us square that circle.
That's good to know :)
> Hajime (and other LKL people):
>
> What is the current status of this patchset? I have not seen any
> activity for a couple months.
I've been a bit busy over the year-end term but recently restarted to
work for the patchset to address the comments received from the
discussion.
> Luis,
>
> Does this kind of match what you were thinking with the syscall testing?
> I think this looks pretty close. You should be able to fully test the
> contract here using KUnit. Is there anyone else you think would be
> interested in this?
>
> In any case, I am excited about this. Please keep me posted in the
> future!
I hope I can send v3 patches soon.
Thanks for the interest !
-- Hajime
