Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAFd5g46JiiddNxHW_jK6fjdfjGMjWsXsFuvL6H9xcZc98HWQyQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20220311072859.2174624-1-brendanhiggins@google.com>
 <1e1472e8-1813-3903-f934-cb0ae7f09864@linuxfoundation.org> <CAFd5g46JiiddNxHW_jK6fjdfjGMjWsXsFuvL6H9xcZc98HWQyQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Martin Fernandez <martin.fernandez@eclypsium.com>
Date:   Thu, 7 Apr 2022 18:34:57 -0300
Message-ID: <CAKgze5bCf+v4PoS92XCDV2cD7d0iUvCvxHbPqAnLoW8pwoKbtQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] kunit: add support for kunit_suites that reference
 init code
To:     Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Cc:     Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>, shuah@kernel.org,
        davidgow@google.com, dlatypov@google.com,
        daniel.gutson@eclypsium.com, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        keescook@chromium.org, jk@codeconstruct.com.au
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On 4/4/22, Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 6:37 PM Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Brendan,
>>
>> On 3/11/22 12:28 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>> > Add support for a new kind of kunit_suite registration macro called
>> > kunit_test_init_suite(); this new registration macro allows the
>> > registration of kunit_suites that reference functions marked __init and
>> > data marked __initdata.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
>> > Tested-by: Martin Fernandez <martin.fernandez@eclypsium.com>
>> > Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
>> > Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
>> > ---
>> >
>>
>> I almost applied it ...
>>
>> > This is a follow-up to the RFC here[1].
>> >
>> > This patch is in response to a KUnit user issue[2] in which the user
>> > was
>> > attempting to test some init functions; although this is a functional
>> > solution as long as KUnit tests only run during the init phase, we will
>> > need to do more work if we ever allow tests to run after the init phase
>> > is over; it is for this reason that this patch adds a new registration
>> > macro rather than simply modifying the existing macros.
>> >
>> > Changes since last version:
>> >   - I added more to the kunit_test_init_suites() kernel-doc comment
>> >     detailing "how" the modpost warnings are suppressed in addition to
>> >     the existing information regarding "why" it is OK for the modpost
>> >     warnings to be suppressed.
>> >
>> > [1]
>> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20220310210210.2124637-1-brendanhiggins@google.com/
>> > [2] https://groups.google.com/g/kunit-dev/c/XDjieRHEneg/m/D0rFCwVABgAJ
>> >
>> > ---
>> >   include/kunit/test.h | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >   1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h
>> > index b26400731c02..7f303a06bc97 100644
>> > --- a/include/kunit/test.h
>> > +++ b/include/kunit/test.h
>> > @@ -379,6 +379,32 @@ static inline int kunit_run_all_tests(void)
>> >
>> >   #define kunit_test_suite(suite)     kunit_test_suites(&suite)
>> >
>> > +/**
>> > + * kunit_test_init_suites() - used to register one or more &struct
>> > kunit_suite
>> > + *                         containing init functions or init data.
>> > + *
>> > + * @__suites: a statically allocated list of &struct kunit_suite.
>> > + *
>> > + * This functions identically as &kunit_test_suites() except that it
>> > suppresses
>> > + * modpost warnings for referencing functions marked __init or data
>> > marked
>> > + * __initdata; this is OK because currently KUnit only runs tests upon
>> > boot
>> > + * during the init phase or upon loading a module during the init
>> > phase.
>> > + *
>> > + * NOTE TO KUNIT DEVS: If we ever allow KUnit tests to be run after
>> > boot, these
>> > + * tests must be excluded.
>> > + *
>> > + * The only thing this macro does that's different from
>> > kunit_test_suites is
>> > + * that it suffixes the array and suite declarations it makes with
>> > _probe;
>> > + * modpost suppresses warnings about referencing init data for symbols
>> > named in
>> > + * this manner.
>> > + */
>> > +#define kunit_test_init_suites(__suites...)                          \
>> > +     __kunit_test_suites(CONCATENATE(__UNIQUE_ID(array), _probe),    \
>> > +                         CONCATENATE(__UNIQUE_ID(suites), _probe),   \
>> > +                         ##__suites)
>> > +
>> > +#define kunit_test_init_suite(suite) kunit_test_init_suites(&suite)
>> > +
>> >   #define kunit_suite_for_each_test_case(suite, test_case)            \
>> >       for (test_case = suite->test_cases; test_case->run_case;
>> > test_case++)
>> >
>> >
>>
>> The naming of the function and macro are rather confusing and can become
>> error prone. Let's find better naming scheme.
>
> Yeah, I wasn't sure about the name. I didn't have any better ideas
> initially though. Any suggestions?
>

What about kunit_test_init_section_suite?

>> > base-commit: 330f4c53d3c2d8b11d86ec03a964b86dc81452f5
>> >
>>
>> thanks,
>> -- Shuah
>