mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>
To: Rae Moar <rmoar@google.com>,
	brendanhiggins@google.com, davidgow@google.com,
	dlatypov@google.com
Cc: skhan@linuxfoundation.org, tales.aparecida@gmail.com,
	kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, apparmor@lists.ubuntu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] kunit: add macro to allow conditionally exposing static symbols to tests
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2022 18:43:05 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3bc67108-9f4a-4cd7-619d-d61816625e1a@canonical.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221207014024.340230-1-rmoar@google.com>

On 12/6/22 17:40, Rae Moar wrote:
> Currently in order to test a static function, tests must be included in the
> same translation unit as the function. However, this can cause issues with
> including implementation and test code in the same file. As an alternative,
> the first patch in this series creates a macro that will set a function to
> be static or not depending on whether CONFIG_KUNIT is enabled. This allows
> the function to be visible during testing and static otherwise.
> 
> As an example, the current status quo to test static functions is:
> 
> === test.c ===
> 
> static void test_case(struct kunit *test)
> {
>    KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, my_func_to_test(), 2);
> }
> 
> Then the tests are included in the implementation file as a workaround to
> the issue of testing static functions:
> 
> === implementation.c ===
> 
> static int my_func_to_test() {...}
> ...
> #include "test.c"
> 
> Instead, the function could be defined with this new macro:
> 
> === implementation.c ===
> 
> VISIBLE_IF_KUNIT int my_func_to_test() {...}
> 
> The first patch also creates a macro that will export a symbol into a kunit
> testing namespace only if CONFIG_KUNIT is enabled. This follows the logic
> above and allows symbols to be conditionally exported based on the testing
> status.
> 
> The second patch in the series updates the policy_unpack test in AppArmor
> to show an example of how to use both of these macros in order to address
> the issue of testing static functions. Additionally, the patch allows the
> policy_unpack test to be built as a module.
> 
> Changes since v2:
>   - Add mention of namespacing symbols to the commit message of the
>     second patch.
>   - Change module name in the second patch from policy_unpack_test to
>     apparmor_policy_unpack_test.
> 
> Changes since v1:
>   - Changed the namespace of exported symbols for the apparmor
>     policy_unpack_test by adding the aa_ prefix.
>   - Separated the documentation comments for macros in
>     include/kunit/visibility.h.
>   - Changed copyright date and author for include/kunit/visibility.h.
> 
> Rae Moar (2):
>    kunit: add macro to allow conditionally exposing static symbols to
>      tests
>    apparmor: test: make static symbols visible during kunit testing
> 
>   include/kunit/visibility.h                |  33 +++
>   security/apparmor/Kconfig                 |   4 +-
>   security/apparmor/Makefile                |   3 +
>   security/apparmor/include/policy_unpack.h |  50 +++++
>   security/apparmor/policy_unpack.c         | 238 ++++++++++------------
>   security/apparmor/policy_unpack_test.c    |  69 ++++---
>   6 files changed, 229 insertions(+), 168 deletions(-)
>   create mode 100644 include/kunit/visibility.h
> 
> 
> base-commit: 0f08f3e2a0186dfb8e33cb46105228eb18448a0e

thanks Rae,

looks good to me, David unless you tell me otherwise I assume this is
still going in via the kselftest/kunit tree.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-12-07  2:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-12-07  1:40 Rae Moar
2022-12-07  1:40 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] " Rae Moar
2022-12-07  1:40 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] apparmor: test: make static symbols visible during kunit testing Rae Moar
2022-12-07  2:43 ` John Johansen [this message]
2022-12-07  2:54   ` [PATCH v3 0/2] kunit: add macro to allow conditionally exposing static symbols to tests David Gow

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=3bc67108-9f4a-4cd7-619d-d61816625e1a@canonical.com \
    --to=john.johansen@canonical.com \
    --cc=apparmor@lists.ubuntu.com \
    --cc=brendanhiggins@google.com \
    --cc=davidgow@google.com \
    --cc=dlatypov@google.com \
    --cc=kunit-dev@googlegroups.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rmoar@google.com \
    --cc=skhan@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=tales.aparecida@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®