user/sven/linux.git/include/kunit, branch v6.1.96

kunit: add macro to allow conditionally exposing static symbols to tests

2023-11-20T10:52:08Z

[ Upstream commit 9c988fae6f6ae3224a568ab985881b66bb50c9ec ] 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 Reviewed-by: John Johansen Reviewed-by: David Gow Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan Stable-dep-of: 8884ba07786c ("apparmor: fix invalid reference on profile->disconnected") Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

kunit: fix kunit_test_init_section_suites(...)

2023-02-09T10:28:08Z

[ Upstream commit 254c71374a70051a043676b67ba4f7ad392b5fe6 ] Looks like kunit_test_init_section_suites(...) was messed up in a merge conflict. This fixes it. kunit_test_init_section_suites(...) was not updated to avoid the extra level of indirection when .kunit_test_suites was flattened. Given no-one was actively using it, this went unnoticed for a long period of time. Fixes: e5857d396f35 ("kunit: flatten kunit_suite*** to kunit_suite** in .kunit_test_suites") Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins Signed-off-by: David Gow Tested-by: Martin Fernandez Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

kunit: declare kunit_assert structs as const

2022-10-07T16:19:18Z

Everywhere we use the assert structs now takes them via const*, as of commit 7466886b400b ("kunit: take `kunit_assert` as `const`"). So now let's properly declare the structs as const as well. Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov Reviewed-by: David Gow Reviewed-by: Miguel Ojeda Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan

kunit: rename base KUNIT_ASSERTION macro to _KUNIT_FAILED

2022-10-07T16:16:45Z

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 Reviewed-by: David Gow Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan

kunit: remove format func from struct kunit_assert, get it to 0 bytes

2022-10-07T16:16:38Z

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 21957f90b28f ("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 Reviewed-by: David Gow Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan

kunit: make kunit_kfree() only work on pointers from kunit_malloc() and friends

2022-10-07T16:15:44Z

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 Reviewed-by: David Gow Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan

kunit: no longer call module_info(test, "Y") for kunit modules

2022-09-30T19:17:49Z

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 Reviewed-by: David Gow Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan

kunit: add kunit.enable to enable/disable KUnit test

2022-09-30T19:17:39Z

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 Reviewed-by: David Gow Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan

kunit: fix assert_type for comparison macros

2022-09-01T19:00:32Z

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: 40f39777ce4f ("kunit: decrease macro layering for integer asserts") Signed-off-by: Sander Vanheule Reviewed-by: Daniel Latypov Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan

kunit: flatten kunit_suite* to kunit_suite in .kunit_test_suites

2022-07-11T23:13:15Z

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 Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov Co-developed-by: David Gow Signed-off-by: David Gow Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan