Re: [PATCH linux-kselftest/test v1] apparmor: add AppArmor KUnit tests for policy unpack
From: Luis Chamberlain
Date: Sat Oct 19 2019 - 14:36:58 EST
On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 01:56:01PM +0100, Alan Maguire wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2019, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 05:18:16PM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > > From: Mike Salvatore <mike.salvatore@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > In order to write the tests against the policy unpacking code, some
> > > static functions needed to be exposed for testing purposes. One of the
> > > goals of this patch is to establish a pattern for which testing these
> > > kinds of functions should be done in the future.
> > And you'd run into the same situation expressed elsewhere with kunit of
> > an issue of the kunit test as built-in working but if built as a module
> > then it would not work, given the lack of exports. Symbols namespaces
> > should resolve this , and we'd be careful where a driver imports this
> > namespace.
> >  https://lwn.net/Articles/798254/
> Thanks for the link! Looks interesting for us definitely!
> WRT adding tests, I think what we're aiming at is a set of best practices
> to advise test developers using KUnit, while attempting to minimize
> side-effects of any changes we need to make to support testability.
> One aspect of this we probably have to consider is inlining of code.
Sure. Makes sense.