Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] kunit: support failure from dynamic analysis tools

[Shuah Khan]

On 4/2/21 3:44 PM, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 4/2/21 3:25 PM, Daniel Latypov wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 10:53 AM Shuah Khan <skhan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
> > wrote:
> > > On 4/2/21 2:55 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 7:23 AM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@xxxxxxxxxx> 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > From: Uriel Guajardo <urielguajardo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > > Add a kunit_fail_current_test() function to fail the currently running
> > > > > test, if any, with an error message.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is largely intended for dynamic analysis tools like UBSAN and for
> > > > > fakes.
> > > > > E.g. say I had a fake ops struct for testing and I wanted my `free`
> > > > > function to complain if it was called with an invalid argument, or
> > > > > caught a double-free. Most return void and have no normal means of
> > > > > signalling failure (e.g. super_operations, iommu_ops, etc.).
> > > > >
> > > > > Key points:
> > > > > * Always update current->kunit_test so anyone can use it.
> > > > >     * commit 83c4e7a0363b ("KUnit: KASAN Integration") only updated 
> > > > > it for
> > > > >     CONFIG_KASAN=y
> > > > >
> > > > > * Create a new header <kunit/test-bug.h> so non-test code doesn't have
> > > > > to include all of <kunit/test.h> (e.g. lib/ubsan.c)
> > > > >
> > > > > * Forward the file and line number to make it easier to track down
> > > > > failures
> > > > >
> > > > > * Declare the helper function for nice __printf() warnings about 
> > > > > mismatched
> > > > > format strings even when KUnit is not enabled.
> > > > >
> > > > > Example output from kunit_fail_current_test("message"):
> > > > > [15:19:34] [FAILED] example_simple_test
> > > > > [15:19:34]     # example_simple_test: initializing
> > > > > [15:19:34]     # example_simple_test: 
> > > > > lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c:24: message
> > > > > [15:19:34]     not ok 1 - example_simple_test
> > > > >
> > > > > Co-developed-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Uriel Guajardo <urielguajardo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Please run checkpatch on your patches in the future. I am seeing
> > > a few checkpatch readability type improvements that can be made.
> > >
> > > Please make changes and send v2 with Brendan's Reviewed-by.
> >
> > Thanks for the catch.
> > checkpatch.pl --strict should now be happy (aside from complaining
> > about line wrapping)
> >
> > v5 here: 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20210402212131.835276-1-dlatypov@xxxxxxxxxx 
> >
> >
> > Note: Brendan didn't give an explicit Reviewed-by on the second patch,
> > not sure if that was intentional.
>
> No worries. I applied this one as well. I was able to fix it with just
> checkpatch --fix option.

Clarification. Applied 1/2 - I will wait for Brendan's ack on 2/2

thanks,
-- Shuah