On 2/7/22, Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 01:43:25PM -0300, Martin Fernandez wrote:
>> __e820__range_update and e820__range_remove had a very similar
>> I propose a refactor of those functions, given that I need to create a
>> similar one for this patchset.
>
> The diff here is pretty hard (for me) to review; I'll need more time
> to check it. What might make review easier (at least for me), is to
> incrementally change these routines. i.e. separate patches to:
>
> - add the new infrastructure
> - replace e820__range_remove
> - replace __e820__range_update
>
> If that's not actually useful, no worries. I'll just stare at it a bit
> more. :)
>
Yep, that's a good idea. I'll keep that in mind for the next patch.
>>
>> Add a function to modify a E820 table in a given range. This
>> modification is done backed up by two helper structs:
>> e820_entry_updater and e820_*_data.
>>
>> The first one, e820_entry_updater, carries 3 callbacks which function
>> as the actions to take on the table.
>>
>> The other one, e820_*_data carries information needed by the
>> callbacks, for example in the case of range_update it will carry the
>> type that we are targeting.
>
> Something I think would be really amazing here is if you could add KUnit
> tests here to exercise the corner cases and validate the changes. It
> should be pretty easy to add. Here's a quick example for the boilerplate
> and testing a bit of __e820__range_add():
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_E820_KUNIT_TEST
> #include <kunit/test.h>
>
> static void __init test_e820_range_add(struct kunit *context)
> {
> struct e820_table table;
> u32 full;
>
> full = ARRAY_SIZE(table.entries);
> /* Add last entry. */
> table->nr_entries = full - 1;
> __e820__range_add(&table, 0, 15, 0);
> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(table->nr_entries, full)
> /* Skip new entry when full. */
> __e820__range_add(&table, 0, 15, 0);
> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(table->nr_entries, full)
> }
>
> static void __init test_e820_update(struct kunit *context)
> {
> ...
> }
>
> static struct kunit_case __refdata e820_test_cases[] = {
> KUNIT_CASE(test_e820_range_add),
> KUNIT_CASE(test_e820_update),
> ...
> {}
> };
>
> static struct kunit_suite e820_test_suite = {
> .name = "e820",
> .test_cases = e820_test_cases,
> };
>
> kunit_test_suites(&e820_test_suite);
> #endif
>
Oh that's awesome! I'll definitely take a look into KUnit and integrate
it to this patch. Thanks for the code snippet!
