Re: kselftest and cargo

[Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 04:39:37PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 9/16/25 07:48, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > The pre-existing kselftest for TPM2 is derived works of my earlier Python
> > based rudimentary TPM2 stack called 'tpm2-scripts'.
> > 
> > In order to get more coverage and more mainintainable and extensible test
> > suite I'd like to eventually rewrite the tests with bash and tpm2sh, which
> > is a TPM2 cli written with Rust and based on my new TPM2 stack [1] [2].
> > 
> > Given linux-rust work, would it be acceptable to require cargo to install
> > a runner for kselftest? I'm finishing off now 0.11 version of the tool,
> > which will take some time (versions before that are honestly quite bad,
> > don't try them) but after that this would be something I'd like to
> > put together.
> 
> Probably fine - how does this impact kselftest default run?

OK so this was early query: I might introduce such test as part
of series that hasa waited for long time for an update [1]. I can
use tpm2sh more easily to reproduce equivalent crypto as kernel
does and make a test that can compare the results in a meaningful
manner. I also plan to relocate tpm2sh as part of git.kernel.org
custody from Github, as its main dependency tpm2-protocol crate 
already is [2].

I went over the top in the original mail: most definitely it makes
sense to retain the pre-existing test, and such "Rust-enhanced"
test should be conditional, and can instead of depending on cargo
simply do "command -v" in order to check the existence of tpm2sh
and output installation instructions if it is missing.

With those precautions it should be somewhat harmless unless you
actually want to run that test.

Thanks for quick response!

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/20240528210823.28798-1-jarkko@kernel.org/
[2] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jarkko/tpm2-protocol.git

BR, Jarkko