On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 1:46 PM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > OK so, we can just skip tainting considerations for selftests which > don't use modules for now. There may be selftests which do wonky > things in userspace but indeed I agree the userspace taint would > be better for those but I don't think it may be worth bother > worrying about those at this point in time. > > But my point in that sharing a taint between kunit / selftests modules > does make sense and is easily possible. The unfortunate aspect is just Yes, I 100% agree that we should share a taint for kernelspace testing from both kunit/kselftest. Someone running the system won't care what framework was used. > that selftests don't have a centralized runner, because I can just > run tools/testing/selftests/sysctl/sysctl.sh for example and that's it. > So I think we have no other option but to just add the module info > manually for selftests at this time. Somewhat tangential: there's a number of other test modules that aren't explicitly part of kselftest. Long-term, I think most of them should be converted to kselftest or kunit as appropriate, so they'll get taken care of eventually. A number of these modules depend on CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL=y, but we can't pre-emptively set this new taint flag by checking for it as it's too widely used :\ E.g. the debian-based distro I'm using right now has it set $ grep 'CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL=y' /boot/config-$(uname -r) CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL=y -Daniel
