Create two macros:
VISIBLE_IF_KUNIT - A macro that sets symbols to be static if CONFIG_KUNIT
is not enabled. Otherwise if CONFIG_KUNIT is enabled there is no change to
the symbol definition.
EXPORT_SYMBOL_IF_KUNIT(symbol) - Exports symbol into
EXPORTED_FOR_KUNIT_TESTING namespace only if CONFIG_KUNIT is enabled. Must
use MODULE_IMPORT_NS(EXPORTED_FOR_KUNIT_TESTING) in test file in order to
use symbols.
Signed-off-by: Rae Moar <rmoar@google.com>
Reviewed-by: John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
In order to detect if a KUnit test is running, and to access its
context, the 'kunit_test' member of the current task_struct is used.
Usually, this is accessed directly or via the kunit_fail_current_task()
function.
In order to speed up the case where no test is running, add a wrapper,
kunit_get_current_test(), which uses the static key to fail early.
Equally, Speed up kunit_fail_current_test() by using the static key.
This should make it convenient for code to call this
unconditionally in fakes or error paths, without worrying that this will
slow the code down significantly.
If CONFIG_KUNIT=n (or m), this compiles away to nothing. If
CONFIG_KUNIT=y, it will compile down to a NOP (on most architectures) if
no KUnit test is currently running.
Note that kunit_get_current_test() does not work if KUnit is built as a
module. This mirrors the existing restriction on kunit_fail_current_test().
Note that the definition of kunit_fail_current_test() still wraps an
empty, inline function if KUnit is not built-in. This is to ensure that
the printf format string __attribute__ will still work.
Also update the documentation to suggest users use the new
kunit_get_current_test() function, update the example, and to describe
the behaviour when KUnit is disabled better.
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Cc: Sadiya Kazi <sadiyakazi@google.com>
Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
KUnit does a few expensive things when enabled. This hasn't been a
problem because KUnit was only enabled on test kernels, but with a few
people enabling (but not _using_) KUnit on production systems, we need a
runtime way of handling this.
Provide a 'kunit_running' static key (defaulting to false), which allows
us to hide any KUnit code behind a static branch. This should reduce the
performance impact (on other code) of having KUnit enabled to a single
NOP when no tests are running.
Note that, while it looks unintuitive, tests always run entirely within
__kunit_test_suites_init(), so it's safe to decrement the static key at
the end of this function, rather than in __kunit_test_suites_exit(),
which is only there to clean up results in debugfs.
Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Commit 870f63b7cd78 ("kunit: eliminate KUNIT_INIT_*_ASSERT_STRUCT
macros") removed all the other macros of this type.
But it raced with commit b8a926bea8 ("kunit: Introduce
KUNIT_EXPECT_MEMEQ and KUNIT_EXPECT_MEMNEQ macros"), which added another
instance.
Remove KUNIT_INIT_MEM_ASSERTION and just use the generic
KUNIT_INIT_ASSERT macro instead.
Rename the `size` arg to avoid conflicts by appending a "_" (like we did
in the previous commit).
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
These macros exist because passing an initializer list to other macros
is hard.
The goal of these macros is to generate a line like
struct $ASSERT_TYPE __assertion = $APPROPRIATE_INITIALIZER;
e.g.
struct kunit_unary_assertion __assertion = {
.condition = "foo()",
.expected_true = true
};
But the challenge is you can't pass `{.condition=..., .expect_true=...}`
as a macro argument, since the comma means you're actually passing two
arguments, `{.condition=...` and `.expect_true=....}`.
So we'd made custom macros for each different initializer-list shape.
But we can work around this with the following generic macro
#define KUNIT_INIT_ASSERT(initializers...) { initializers }
Note: this has the downside that we have to rename some macros arguments
to not conflict with the struct field names (e.g. `expected_true`).
It's a bit gross, but probably worth reducing the # of macros.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Currently, in order to compare memory blocks in KUnit, the KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ
or KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE macros are used in conjunction with the memcmp
function, such as:
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, memcmp(foo, bar, size), 0);
Although this usage produces correct results for the test cases, when
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_MEMEQ and
KUNIT_EXPECT_MEMNEQ that compare memory blocks until a specified size.
In case of expectation failure, those macros print the hex dump of the
memory blocks, making it easier to debug test failures for memory blocks.
That said, the expectation
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, memcmp(foo, bar, size), 0);
would translate to the expectation
KUNIT_EXPECT_MEMEQ(test, foo, bar, size);
Signed-off-by: Maíra Canal <mairacanal@riseup.net>
Reviewed-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@collabora.com>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Everywhere we use the assert structs now takes them via const*, as of
commit 7466886b40 ("kunit: take `kunit_assert` as `const`").
So now let's properly declare the structs as const as well.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Context:
Currently this macro's name, KUNIT_ASSERTION conflicts with the name of
an enum whose values are {KUNIT_EXPECTATION, KUNIT_ASSERTION}.
It's hard to think of a better name for the enum, so rename this macro.
It's also a bit strange that the macro might do nothing depending on the
boolean argument `pass`. Why not have callers check themselves?
This patch:
Moves the pass/fail checking into the callers of KUNIT_ASSERTION, so now
we only call it when the check has failed.
Then we rename the macro the _KUNIT_FAILED() to reflect the new
semantics.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Each calll to a KUNIT_EXPECT_*() macro creates a local variable which
contains a struct kunit_assert.
Normally, we'd hope the compiler would be able to optimize this away,
but we've seen cases where it hasn't, see
https://groups.google.com/g/kunit-dev/c/i3fZXgvBrfA/m/GbrMNej2BAAJ.
In changes like commit 21957f90b2 ("kunit: split out part of
kunit_assert into a static const"), we've moved more and more parts out
of struct kunit_assert and its children types (kunit_binary_assert).
This patch removes the final field and gets us to:
sizeof(struct kunit_assert) == 0
sizeof(struct kunit_binary_assert) == 24 (on UML x86_64).
This also reduces the amount of macro plumbing going on at the cost of
passing in one more arg to the base KUNIT_ASSERTION macro and
kunit_do_failed_assertion().
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
kunit_kfree() exists to clean up allocations from kunit_kmalloc() and
friends early instead of waiting for this to happen automatically at the
end of the test.
But it can be used on *anything* registered with the kunit resource API.
E.g. the last 2 statements are equivalent:
struct kunit_resource *res = something();
kfree(res->data);
kunit_put_resource(res);
The problem is that there could be multiple resources that point to the
same `data`.
E.g. you can have a named resource acting as a pseudo-global variable in
a test. If you point it to data allocated with kunit_kmalloc(), then
calling `kunit_kfree(ptr)` has the chance to delete either the named
resource or to kfree `ptr`.
Which one it does depends on the order the resources are registered as
kunit_kfree() will delete resources in LIFO order.
So this patch restricts kunit_kfree() to only working on resources
created by kunit_kmalloc(). Calling it is therefore guaranteed to free
the memory, not do anything else.
Note: kunit_resource_instance_match() wasn't used outside of KUnit, so
it should be safe to remove from the public interface. It's also
generally dangerous, as shown above, and shouldn't be used.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Because KUnit test execution is not a guarantee with the kunit.enable
parameter we want to be careful to only taint the kernel when actual
tests run. Calling module_info(test, "Y") for every KUnit module
automatically causes the kernel to be tainted upon module load. Therefore,
we're removing this call and relying on the KUnit framework to taint the
kernel or not.
Signed-off-by: Joe Fradley <joefradley@google.com>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
This patch adds the kunit.enable module parameter that will need to be
set to true in addition to KUNIT being enabled for KUnit tests to run.
The default value is true giving backwards compatibility. However, for
the production+testing use case the new config option
KUNIT_DEFAULT_ENABLED can be set to N requiring the tester to opt-in
by passing kunit.enable=1 to the kernel.
Signed-off-by: Joe Fradley <joefradley@google.com>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
When replacing KUNIT_BINARY_*_MSG_ASSERTION() macros with
KUNIT_BINARY_INT_ASSERTION(), the assert_type parameter was not always
correctly transferred. Specifically, the following errors were
introduced:
- KUNIT_EXPECT_LE_MSG() uses KUNIT_ASSERTION
- KUNIT_ASSERT_LT_MSG() uses KUNIT_EXPECTATION
- KUNIT_ASSERT_GT_MSG() uses KUNIT_EXPECTATION
A failing KUNIT_EXPECT_LE_MSG() test thus prevents further tests from
running, while failing KUNIT_ASSERT_{LT,GT}_MSG() tests do not prevent
further tests from running. This is contrary to the documentation,
which states that failing KUNIT_EXPECT_* macros allow further tests to
run, while failing KUNIT_ASSERT_* macros should prevent this.
Revert the KUNIT_{ASSERTION,EXPECTATION} switches to fix the behaviour
for the affected macros.
Fixes: 40f39777ce ("kunit: decrease macro layering for integer asserts")
Signed-off-by: Sander Vanheule <sander@svanheule.net>
Reviewed-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
We currently store kunit suites in the .kunit_test_suites ELF section as
a `struct kunit_suite***` (modulo some `const`s).
For every test file, we store a struct kunit_suite** NULL-terminated array.
This adds quite a bit of complexity to the test filtering code in the
executor.
Instead, let's just make the .kunit_test_suites section contain a single
giant array of struct kunit_suite pointers, which can then be directly
manipulated. This array is not NULL-terminated, and so none of the test
filtering code needs to NULL-terminate anything.
Tested-by: Maíra Canal <maira.canal@usp.br>
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Co-developed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Currently, KUnit runs built-in tests and tests loaded from modules
differently. For built-in tests, the kunit_test_suite{,s}() macro adds a
list of suites in the .kunit_test_suites linker section. However, for
kernel modules, a module_init() function is used to run the test suites.
This causes problems if tests are included in a module which already
defines module_init/exit_module functions, as they'll conflict with the
kunit-provided ones.
This change removes the kunit-defined module inits, and instead parses
the kunit tests from their own section in the module. After module init,
we call __kunit_test_suites_init() on the contents of that section,
which prepares and runs the suite.
This essentially unifies the module- and non-module kunit init formats.
Tested-by: Maíra Canal <maira.canal@usp.br>
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Jeremy Kerr <jk@codeconstruct.com.au>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Fix this kernel-doc warning:
Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/api/test:9: ./include/kunit/test.h:323: WARNING: Inline interpreted text or phrase reference start-string without end-string.
Functions should use func_name() on kernel-doc markups, as
documented at:
Documentation/doc-guide/kernel-doc.rst
Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Make KUnit trigger the new TAINT_TEST taint when any KUnit test is run.
Due to KUnit tests not being intended to run on production systems, and
potentially causing problems (or security issues like leaking kernel
addresses), the kernel's state should not be considered safe for
production use after KUnit tests are run.
This both marks KUnit modules as test modules using MODULE_INFO() and
manually taints the kernel when tests are run (which catches builtin
tests).
Acked-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Tested-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Tested-by: Maíra Canal <mairacanal@riseup.net>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
The `kunit_do_failed_assertion` function passes its
`struct kunit_assert` argument to `kunit_fail`. This one,
in turn, calls its `format` field passing the assert again
as a `const` pointer.
Therefore, the whole chain may be made `const`.
Signed-off-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
KUnit's test-managed resources can be created in two ways:
- Using the kunit_add_resource() family of functions, which accept a
struct kunit_resource pointer, typically allocated statically or on
the stack during the test.
- Using the kunit_alloc_resource() family of functions, which allocate a
struct kunit_resource using kzalloc() behind the scenes.
Both of these families of functions accept a 'free' function to be
called when the resource is finally disposed of.
At present, KUnit will kfree() the resource if this 'free' function is
specified, and will not if it is NULL. However, this can lead
kunit_alloc_resource() to leak memory (if no 'free' function is passed
in), or kunit_add_resource() to incorrectly kfree() memory which was
allocated by some other means (on the stack, as part of a larger
allocation, etc), if a 'free' function is provided.
Instead, always kfree() if the resource was allocated with
kunit_alloc_resource(), and never kfree() if it was passed into
kunit_add_resource() by the user. (If the user of kunit_add_resource()
wishes the resource be kfree()ed, they can call kfree() on the resource
from within the 'free' function.
This is implemented by adding a 'should_free' member to
struct kunit_resource and setting it appropriately. To facilitate this,
the various resource add/alloc functions have been refactored somewhat,
making them all call a __kunit_add_resource() helper after setting the
'should_free' member appropriately. In the process, all other functions
have been made static inline functions.
Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Tested-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
KUnit has support for setup/cleanup logic for each test case in a suite.
But it lacks the ability to specify setup/cleanup for the entire suite
itself.
This can be used to do setup that is too expensive or cumbersome to do
for each test.
Or it can be used to do simpler things like log debug information after
the suite completes.
It's a fairly common feature, so the lack of it is noticeable.
Some examples in other frameworks and languages:
* https://docs.python.org/3/library/unittest.html#setupclass-and-teardownclass
* https://google.github.io/googletest/reference/testing.html#Test::SetUpTestSuite
Meta:
This is very similar to this patch here: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20210805043503.20252-3-bvanassche@acm.org/
The changes from that patch:
* pass in `struct kunit *` so users can do stuff like
`kunit_info(suite, "debug message")`
* makes sure the init failure is bubbled up as a failure
* updates kunit-example-test.c to use a suite init
* Updates kunit/usage.rst to mention the new support
* some minor cosmetic things
* use `suite_{init,exit}` instead of `{init/exit}_suite`
* make suite init error message more consistent w/ test init
* etc.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Add support for a new kind of kunit_suite registration macro called
kunit_test_init_section_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>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Background:
Currently, a reader looking at kunit/test.h will find the file is quite
long, and the first meaty comment is a doc comment about struct
kunit_resource.
Most users will not ever use the KUnit resource API directly.
They'll use kunit_kmalloc() and friends, or decide it's simpler to do
cleanups via labels (it often can be) instead of figuring out how to use
the API.
It's also logically separate from everything else in test.h.
Removing it from the file doesn't cause any compilation errors (since
struct kunit has `struct list_head resources` to store them).
This commit:
Let's move it into a kunit/resource.h file and give it a separate page
in the docs, kunit/api/resource.rst.
We include resource.h at the bottom of test.h since
* don't want to force existing users to add a new include if they use the API
* it accesses `lock` inside `struct kunit` in a inline func
* so we can't just forward declare, and the alternatives require
uninlining the func, adding hepers to lock/unlock, or other more
invasive changes.
Now the first big comment in test.h is about kunit_case, which is a lot
more relevant to what a new user wants to know.
A side effect of this is git blame won't properly track history by
default, users need to run
$ git blame -L ,1 -C17 include/kunit/resource.h
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Today, when we want to check if a pointer is NULL and not ERR we have
two options:
KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, ptr == NULL);
or
KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_NE(test, ptr, (struct mystruct *)NULL);
Create a new set of macros that take care of NULL checks.
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
All the operands should be tagged `const`.
We're only assigning them to variables so that we can compare them (e.g.
check if left == right, etc.) and avoid evaluating expressions multiple
times.
There's no need for them to be mutable.
Also rename the helper variable `loc` to `__loc` like we do with
`__assertion` and `__strs` to avoid potential name collisions with user
code.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
If the compiler doesn't optimize them away, each kunit assertion (use of
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ, etc.) can use 88 bytes of stack space in the worst and
most common case. This has led to compiler warnings and a suggestion
from Linus to move data from the structs into static const's where
possible [1].
This builds upon [2] which did so for the base struct kunit_assert type.
That only reduced sizeof(struct kunit_binary_assert) from 88 to 64.
Given these are by far the most commonly used asserts, this patch
factors out the textual representations of the operands and comparator
into another static const, saving 16 more bytes.
In detail, KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 2 + 2, 5) yields the following struct
(struct kunit_binary_assert) {
.assert = <struct kunit_assert>,
.operation = "==",
.left_text = "2 + 2",
.left_value = 4,
.right_text = "5",
.right_value = 5,
}
After this change
static const struct kunit_binary_assert_text __text = {
.operation = "==",
.left_text = "2 + 2",
.right_text = "5",
};
(struct kunit_binary_assert) {
.assert = <struct kunit_assert>,
.text = &__text,
.left_value = 4,
.right_value = 5,
}
This also DRYs the code a bit more since these str fields were repeated
for the string and pointer versions of kunit_binary_assert.
Note: we could name the kunit_binary_assert_text fields left/right
instead of left_text/right_text. But that would require changing the
macros a bit since they have args called "left" and "right" which would
be substituted in `.left = #left` as `.2 + 2 = \"2 + 2\"`.
[1] https://groups.google.com/g/kunit-dev/c/i3fZXgvBrfA/m/VULQg1z6BAAJ
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20220113165931.451305-6-dlatypov@google.com/
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
