Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220802161206.228707-1-mairacanal@riseup.net>
In-Reply-To: <20220802161206.228707-1-mairacanal@riseup.net>
From:   Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 2 Aug 2022 09:59:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGS_qxoAc934AwB7SZ34PpoVxvF3Eua-g+aO77kjJf6d1m0+Qw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Introduce KUNIT_EXPECT_ARREQ and KUNIT_EXPECT_ARRNEQ macros
To:     =?UTF-8?B?TWHDrXJhIENhbmFs?= <mairacanal@riseup.net>
Cc:     Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>, davidgow@google.com,
        airlied@linux.ie, daniel@ffwll.ch, davem@davemloft.net,
        kuba@kernel.org, jose.exposito89@gmail.com, javierm@redhat.com,
        andrealmeid@riseup.net, melissa.srw@gmail.com,
        siqueirajordao@riseup.net, Isabella Basso <isabbasso@riseup.net>,
        magalilemes00@gmail.com, tales.aparecida@gmail.com,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 9:12 AM Ma=C3=ADra Canal <mairacanal@riseup.net> wro=
te:
>
> Currently, in order to compare arrays in KUnit, the KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ or
> KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE macros are used in conjunction with the memcmp functio=
n,
> such as:
>   KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, memcmp(foo, bar, size), 0);
>
> Although this usage produces correct results for the test cases, if the
> expectation fails the error message is not very helpful, indicating only =
the
> return of the memcmp function.
>
> Therefore, create a new set of macros KUNIT_EXPECT_ARREQ and
> KUNIT_EXPECT_ARRNEQ that compare memory blocks until a determined size. I=
n
> case of expectation failure, those macros print the hex dump of the memor=
y
> blocks, making it easier to debug test failures for arrays.

I totally agree with this.

The only reason I hadn't sent an RFC out for this so far is
* we didn't have enough use cases quite yet (now resolved)
* I wasn't sure how we'd want to format the failure message.

For the latter, right now this series produces
dst =3D=3D
00000000: 33 0a 60 12 00 a8 00 00 00 00 8e 6b 33 0a 60 12
00000010: 00 00 00 00 00 a8 8e 6b 33 0a 00 00 00 00
result->expected =3D=3D
00000000: 31 0a 60 12 00 a8 00 00 00 00 81 6b 33 0a 60 12
00000010: 00 00 00 00 01 a8 8e 6b 33 0a 00 00 00 00

I was thinking something like what KASAN produces would be nice, e.g.
from https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.19/dev-tools/kasan.html#error-repor=
ts
(I'll paste the bit here, but my email client doesn't support
monospaced fonts, so it won't look nice on my end)

Memory state around the buggy address:
 ffff8801f44ec200: fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb
 ffff8801f44ec280: fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc
>ffff8801f44ec300: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 03
                                                                ^
I just wasn't quite sure how to do it for a diff, since this only
really works well when showing one bad byte.
If we blindly followed that approach, we get

dst =3D=3D
>00000000: 33 0a 60 12 00 a8 00 00 00 00 8e 6b 33 0a 60 12
                                          ^
>00000010: 00 00 00 00 00 a8 8e 6b 33 0a 00 00 00 00
                        ^
result->expected =3D=3D
>00000000: 31 0a 60 12 00 a8 00 00 00 00 81 6b 33 0a 60 12
                                          ^
>00000010: 00 00 00 00 01 a8 8e 6b 33 0a 00 00 00 00
                        ^

But perhaps we could instead highlight the bad bytes with something like
dst =3D=3D
00000000: 33 0a 60 12 00 a8 00 00 00 00 <8e> 6b 33 0a 60 12
00000010: 00 00 00 00 <00> a8 8e 6b 33 0a 00 00 00 00
result->expected =3D=3D
00000000: 31 0a 60 12 00 a8 00 00 00 00 <81> 6b 33 0a 60 12
00000010: 00 00 00 00 <01> a8 8e 6b 33 0a 00 00 00 00

Thoughts, suggestions?