Hi Luis, On 04/12/2018 20:47, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 03:48:15PM -0800, Brendan Higgins wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 5:54 AM Kieran Bingham >> <kieran.bingham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Brendan, >>> >>> Thanks again for this series! >>> >>> On 28/11/2018 19:36, Brendan Higgins wrote: >>>> The ultimate goal is to create minimal isolated test binaries; in the >>>> meantime we are using UML to provide the infrastructure to run tests, so >>>> define an abstract way to configure and run tests that allow us to >>>> change the context in which tests are built without affecting the user. >>>> This also makes pretty and dynamic error reporting, and a lot of other >>>> nice features easier. >>> >>> >>> I wonder if we could somehow generate a shared library object >>> 'libkernel' or 'libumlinux' from a UM configured set of headers and >>> objects so that we could create binary targets directly ? >> >> That's an interesting idea. I think it would be difficult to figure >> out exactly where to draw the line of what goes in there and what >> needs to be built specific to a test a priori. Of course, that leads >> into the biggest problem in general, needed to know what I need to >> build to test the thing that I want to test. >> >> Nevertheless, I could definitely imagine that being useful in a lot of cases. > > Whether or not we can abstract away the kernel into such a mechanism > with uml libraries is a good question worth exploring. > > Developers working upstream do modify their kernels a lot, so we'd have > to update such libraries quite a bit, but I think that's fine too. The > *real* value I think from the above suggestion would be enterprise / > mobile distros or stable kernel maintainers which have a static kernel > they need to support for a relatively *long time*, consider a 10 year > time frame. Running unit tests without qemu with uml and libraries for > respective kernels seems real worthy. I think any such library might be something generated by the kernel build system, so if someone makes substantial changes to a core component provided by the library - it can be up to them to build a corresponding userspace library as well. We could also consider to only provide *static* libraries rather than dynamic. So any one building some userspace tool / test with this would be required to compile against (the version of) the kernel they expect perhaps... - much like we expect modules to be compiled currently. And then the userspace binary would be sufficiently able to live it's life on it's own :) > The overhead for testing a unit test for said targets, *ideally*, would > just be to to reboot into the system with such libraries available, a > unit test would just look for the respective uname -r library and mimic > that kernel, much the same way enterprise distributions today rely on > having debugging symbols available to run against crash / gdb. Having > debug modules / kernel for crash requires such effort already, so this > would just be an extra layer of other prospect tests. Oh - although, yes - there are some good concepts there - but I'm a bit weary of how easy it would be to 'run' the said test against multiple kernel version libraries... there would be a lot of possible ABI conflicts perhaps. My main initial idea for a libumlinux is to provide infrastructure such as our linked-lists and other kernel formatting so that we can take kernel code directly to userspace for test and debug (assuming that there are no hardware dependencies or things that we can't mock out) I think all of this could complement kunit of course - this isn't suggesting an alternative implementation :-) > All ideaware for now, but the roadmap seems to be paving itself. I guess all great ideas start as ideaware somehow ... Now we just have to start the race to see who can tweak the kernel build system to produce an output library first :) (I won't be upset if I don't win the race) -- Regards -- Kieran
