Re: [PATCH 1/2] kunit: add kunit.enable to enable/disable KUnit test

[David Gow]

+Nico Pache in case this could be useful with kernel/kunit packaging.

On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 12:49 AM 'Joe Fradley' via KUnit Development
<kunit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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_ENABLE_DEFAULT_DISABLED can be enabled to default kunit.enable to
> false requiring the tester to opt-in by passing kunit.enable=1 to
> the kernel.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joe Fradley <joefradley@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---

Thanks for sending this out.

I'm generally in support of the idea, and the implementation is okay,
but there are a few small usability issues or bits of futureproofing
we could do.

On the first front, this doesn't integrate well with kunit_tool: if
built-in tests are disabled, it will print the test header and test
plan, but no results, which confuses the kunit_tool parser.
In addition, maybe it'd be nice to have kunit_tool automatically pass
kunit.enable=1 to any kernels it boots. Equally, a few minor
naming/description suggestions.

More details in comments below.

On the second topic, I think we need to work out exactly how we can
evolve this to make it as useful as possible upstream going forward.
In general, while there's nothing fundamentally wrong with having
tests disabled at runtime, it is going to be a very niche feature, as
for most users the correct solution here is to build a new kernel,
without KUnit.

My feeling is that the real distinction worth making here is that
tests can be compiled in and loaded (e.g., if tests are embedded in a
non-test module, like apparmor, or thunderbolt, or (soon) amdgpu), but
won't execute automatically. Now, at the moment there's no way to
manually trigger a test. so this distinction isn't yet important, but
we may want to add something down the line, such as the ability to
trigger a test via debugfs (this was proposed as part of the original
debugfs support packages), or the ability to change the value of this
'enable' flag at runtime, and then load a specific test.

Maybe that involves some further changes to the implementation (at its
most extreme, it could involve moving the checks out into the module
loader and the kernel_init_freeable() function, though I don't think
that's _necessary_), but for the most part, it probably just involves
describing and documenting this change as such.

Would something like that still serve Android's purposes? Or is it
critically important that the idea behind this is "if this is set to
false, there should be no way of running KUnit tests", and having a
manual way to trigger them down the line would defeat the point?

Cheers,
-- David

>  .../admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt         |  6 ++++++
>  lib/kunit/Kconfig                             |  8 ++++++++
>  lib/kunit/test.c                              | 20 +++++++++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 34 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> index d7f30902fda0..ab4c7d133c38 100644
> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> @@ -2436,6 +2436,12 @@
>                         0: force disabled
>                         1: force enabled
>
> +       kunit.enable=   [KUNIT] Enable executing KUnit tests. Requires
> +                       CONFIG_KUNIT to be set to be fully enabled. The
> +                       default value can be overridden to disabled via
> +                       KUNIT_ENABLE_DEFAULT_DISABLED.
> +                       Default is 1 (enabled)
> +
>         kvm.ignore_msrs=[KVM] Ignore guest accesses to unhandled MSRs.
>                         Default is 0 (don't ignore, but inject #GP)
>
> diff --git a/lib/kunit/Kconfig b/lib/kunit/Kconfig
> index 0b5dfb001bac..5d6db58dbe9b 100644
> --- a/lib/kunit/Kconfig
> +++ b/lib/kunit/Kconfig
> @@ -59,4 +59,12 @@ config KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
>
>           If unsure, say N.
>
> +config KUNIT_ENABLE_DEFAULT_DISABLED
> +       bool "Require boot parameter to enable KUnit test execution"
> +       help
> +         Sets the default value of the kernel parameter kunit.enable to 0
> +         (disabled). This means to fully enable kunit, config KUNIT needs
> +         to be enabled along with `kunit.enable=1` passed to the kernel. This
> +         allows KUnit to be opt-in at boot time.
> +

Hmm... would it make more sense to have this be DEFAULT_ENABLED and
have the default value of the config option be y instead?
Personally, I think that'd avoid the double-negative, and so might be clearer.

>  endif # KUNIT
> diff --git a/lib/kunit/test.c b/lib/kunit/test.c
> index b73d5bb5c473..e6f98e16e8ae 100644
> --- a/lib/kunit/test.c
> +++ b/lib/kunit/test.c
> @@ -54,6 +54,17 @@ void __kunit_fail_current_test(const char *file, int line, const char *fmt, ...)
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__kunit_fail_current_test);
>  #endif
>
> +/*
> + * Enable KUnit tests to run.
> + */
> +#ifdef CONFIG_KUNIT_ENABLE_DEFAULT_DISABLED
> +static bool enable_param;
> +#else
> +static bool enable_param = true;
> +#endif
> +module_param_named(enable, enable_param, bool, 0);
> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(enable, "Enable KUnit tests to run");

Maybe "Enable KUnit tests" is simpler than adding "to run", which
reads a bit awkwardly.

If we were to treat this variable as specifically enabling the "run
tests on boot" and/or "module load", then that could be worked into
the description, too.

> +
>  /*
>   * KUnit statistic mode:
>   * 0 - disabled
> @@ -590,6 +601,12 @@ int __kunit_test_suites_init(struct kunit_suite * const * const suites, int num_
>  {
>         unsigned int i;
>
> +       if (!enable_param && num_suites > 0) {
> +               pr_info("kunit: deactivated, cannot load %s\n",
> +                       suites != NULL && suites[0] != NULL ? suites[0]->name : "NULL");
> +               return -EPERM;
> +       }
> +

This mostly works, but has a few small issues:
- KUnit will still print the header and a test plan, so kunit_tool
will report a large number of "crashed" tests when no results are
forthcoming.
  It should be posible to add a similar check in kunit_run_all_tests()
to handle that case:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/lib/kunit/executor.c#L246
  You can test this with:
./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kconfig_add
CONFIG_KUNIT_ENABLE_DEFAULT_DISABLED=y

- The message is not ideal: it only refers to the first suite in the
module (or built into the kernel). and "cannot load" is not really
applicable to built-in tests.
  Maybe the goal should be less to "not load test modules" but more to
"allow test modules to load, but don't run the tests in them".
  Thoughts?

- If we were to treat this as "tests load, but don't run
automatically", then we probably don't want this to be an EPERM...

>         for (i = 0; i < num_suites; i++) {
>                 kunit_init_suite(suites[i]);
>                 kunit_run_tests(suites[i]);
> @@ -607,6 +624,9 @@ void __kunit_test_suites_exit(struct kunit_suite **suites, int num_suites)
>  {
>         unsigned int i;
>
> +       if (!enable_param)
> +               return;
> +
>         for (i = 0; i < num_suites; i++)
>                 kunit_exit_suite(suites[i]);
>
> --
> 2.37.1.595.g718a3a8f04-goog
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "KUnit Development" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kunit-dev+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kunit-dev/20220817164851.3574140-2-joefradley%40google.com.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature