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@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx/ 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. > > ... > > [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@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Vitor Massaru Iha <vitor@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Co-developed-by: Vitor Massaru Iha <vitor@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Vitor Massaru Iha <vitor@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200720224418.200495-1-vitor@xxxxxxxxxxx/ > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@xxxxxxxxxx> > > 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: > > + * https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/dev-tools/kunit/kunit-tool.html#configuring-building-and-running-tests > > + * ./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. > [...] > > @@ -510,30 +477,28 @@ static int __init test_ ## func (void *arg) \ > > \ > > /* Tiny allocation test. */ \ > > ptr = alloc ## want_arg ## want_gfp ## want_node (func, arg, 1);\ > > - if (!ptr) { \ > > - pr_warn(#func " failed regular allocation?!\n"); \ > > - return 1; \ > > - } \ > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, !ptr, \ > > + #func " failed regular allocation?!\n"); \ > > Optional: we can consider using KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL_MSG() here. > It's a more heavy handed than just a `return` on failure, but if the > regular allocation failed, we're probably justified in bailing out on > the whole test case. Yeah, I think it might work here. Earlier I hadn't figured out how to convert each test separately, but now an ASSERT makes sense. > > > + if (!ptr) \ > > + return; \ > > free ## want_arg (free_func, arg, ptr); \ > > \ > > /* Wrapped allocation test. */ \ > > ptr = alloc ## want_arg ## want_gfp ## want_node (func, arg, \ > > a * b); \ > > - if (!ptr) { \ > > - pr_warn(#func " unexpectedly failed bad wrapping?!\n"); \ > > - return 1; \ > > - } \ > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, !ptr, \ > > + #func " unexpectedly failed bad wrapping?!\n"); \ > > + if (!ptr) \ > > + return; \ > > free ## want_arg (free_func, arg, ptr); \ > > \ > > /* Saturated allocation test. */ \ > > ptr = alloc ## want_arg ## want_gfp ## want_node (func, arg, \ > > array_size(a, b)); \ > > - if (ptr) { \ > > - pr_warn(#func " missed saturation!\n"); \ > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, ptr, \ > > + #func " missed saturation!\n"); \ > > + if (ptr) \ > > We can instead do > > if (ptr) { > KUNIT_FAIL(test, #func "missed saturation!"); > free...() > } > > IMO, it's a bit easier to read that way, but not that important. Ah yes, good. That's much better. I will respin and resend... -- Kees Cook
