Re: [RFC v4 08/17] kunit: test: add support for test abort

Brendan Higgins
2019-03-22T01:42:01Z

On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 6:10 PM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/27/19 11:42 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 10:44 PM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2/19/19 7:39 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:52 AM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2/14/19 1:37 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> >>>>> Add support for aborting/bailing out of test cases. Needed for
> >>>>> implementing assertions.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> Changes Since Last Version
> >>>>> - This patch is new introducing a new cross-architecture way to abort
> >>>>> out of a test case (needed for KUNIT_ASSERT_*, see next patch for
> >>>>> details).
> >>>>> - On a side note, this is not a complete replacement for the UML abort
> >>>>> mechanism, but covers the majority of necessary functionality. UML
> >>>>> architecture specific featurs have been dropped from the initial
> >>>>> patchset.
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> include/kunit/test.h | 24 +++++
> >>>>> kunit/Makefile | 3 +-
> >>>>> kunit/test-test.c | 127 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>>> kunit/test.c | 208 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >>>>> 4 files changed, 353 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >>>>> create mode 100644 kunit/test-test.c
> >>>>
> >>>> < snip >
> >>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/kunit/test.c b/kunit/test.c
> >>>>> index d18c50d5ed671..6e5244642ab07 100644
> >>>>> --- a/kunit/test.c
> >>>>> +++ b/kunit/test.c
> >>>>> @@ -6,9 +6,9 @@
> >>>>> * Author: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
> >>>>> */
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -#include <linux/sched.h>
> >>>>> #include <linux/sched/debug.h>
> >>>>> -#include <os.h>
> >>>>> +#include <linux/completion.h>
> >>>>> +#include <linux/kthread.h>
> >>>>> #include <kunit/test.h>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> static bool kunit_get_success(struct kunit *test)
> >>>>> @@ -32,6 +32,27 @@ static void kunit_set_success(struct kunit *test, bool success)
> >>>>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&test->lock, flags);
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +static bool kunit_get_death_test(struct kunit *test)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> + unsigned long flags;
> >>>>> + bool death_test;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&test->lock, flags);
> >>>>> + death_test = test->death_test;
> >>>>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&test->lock, flags);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + return death_test;
> >>>>> +}
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +static void kunit_set_death_test(struct kunit *test, bool death_test)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> + unsigned long flags;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&test->lock, flags);
> >>>>> + test->death_test = death_test;
> >>>>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&test->lock, flags);
> >>>>> +}
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> static int kunit_vprintk_emit(const struct kunit *test,
> >>>>> int level,
> >>>>> const char *fmt,
> >>>>> @@ -70,13 +91,29 @@ static void kunit_fail(struct kunit *test, struct kunit_stream *stream)
> >>>>> stream->commit(stream);
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +static void __noreturn kunit_abort(struct kunit *test)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> + kunit_set_death_test(test, true);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + test->try_catch.throw(&test->try_catch);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + /*
> >>>>> + * Throw could not abort from test.
> >>>>> + */
> >>>>> + kunit_err(test, "Throw could not abort from test!");
> >>>>> + show_stack(NULL, NULL);
> >>>>> + BUG();
> >>>>
> >>>> kunit_abort() is what will be call as the result of an assert failure.
> >>>
> >>> Yep. Does that need clarified somewhere.
> >>>>
> >>>> BUG(), which is a panic, which is crashing the system is not acceptable
> >>>> in the Linux kernel. You will just annoy Linus if you submit this.
> >>>
> >>> Sorry, I thought this was an acceptable use case since, a) this should
> >>> never be compiled in a production kernel, b) we are in a pretty bad,
> >>> unpredictable state if we get here and keep going. I think you might
> >>> have said elsewhere that you think "a" is not valid? In any case, I
> >>> can replace this with a WARN, would that be acceptable?
> >>
> >> A WARN may or may not make sense, depending on the context. It may
> >> be sufficient to simply report a test failure (as in the old version
> >> of case (2) below.
> >>
> >> Answers to "a)" and "b)":
> >>
> >> a) it might be in a production kernel
> >
> > Sorry for a possibly stupid question, how might it be so? Why would
> > someone intentionally build unit tests into a production kernel?
>
> People do things. Just expect it.

Huh, alright. I will take your word for it then.

>
> >>
> >> a') it is not acceptable in my development kernel either
> >
> > Fair enough.
> >
> >>
> >> b) No. You don't crash a developer's kernel either unless it is
> >> required to avoid data corruption.
> >
> > Alright, I thought that was one of those cases, but I am not going to
> > push the point. Also, in case it wasn't clear, the path where BUG()
> > gets called only happens if there is a bug in KUnit itself, not just
> > because a test case fails catastrophically.
>
> Still not out of the woods. Still facing Lions and Tigers and Bears,
> Oh my!

Nope, I guess not :-)

>
> So kunit_abort() is normally called as the result of an assert
> failure (as written many lines further above).
>
> kunit_abort()
> test->try_catch.throw(&test->try_catch)
> // this is really kunit_generic_throw(), yes?
> complete_and_exit()
> if (comp)
> // comp is test_case_completion?
> complete(comp)
> do_exit()
> // void __noreturn do_exit(long code)
> // depending on the task, either panic
> // or the task dies

You are right up until after it calls do_exit().

KUnit actually spawns a thread for the test case to run in so that
when exit is called, only the test case thread dies. The thread that
started KUnit is never affected.

>
> I did not read through enough of the code to understand what is going
> on here. Is each kunit_module executed in a newly created thread?
> And if kunit_abort() is called then that thread dies? Or something
> else?

Mostly right, each kunit_case (not kunit_module) gets executed in its
own newly created thread. If kunit_abort() is called in that thread,
the kunit_case thread dies. The parent thread keeps going, and other
test cases are executed.

>
>
> >>
> >> b') And you can not do replacements like:
> >>
> >> (1) in of_unittest_check_tree_linkage()
> >>
> >> ----- old -----
> >>
> >> if (!of_root)
> >> return;
> >>
> >> ----- new -----
> >>
> >> KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, of_root);
> >>
> >> (2) in of_unittest_property_string()
> >>
> >> ----- old -----
> >>
> >> /* of_property_read_string_index() tests */
> >> rc = of_property_read_string_index(np, "string-property", 0, strings);
> >> unittest(rc == 0 && !strcmp(strings[0], "foobar"), "of_property_read_string_index() failure; rc=%i\n", rc);
> >>
> >> ----- new -----
> >>
> >> /* of_property_read_string_index() tests */
> >> rc = of_property_read_string_index(np, "string-property", 0, strings);
> >> KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, rc, 0);
> >> KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, strings[0], "foobar");
> >>
> >>
> >> If a test fails, that is no reason to abort testing. The remainder of the unit
> >> tests can still run. There may be cascading failures, but that is ok.
> >
> > Sure, that's what I am trying to do. I don't see how (1) changes
> > anything, a failed KUNIT_ASSERT_* only bails on the current test case,
> > it does not quit the entire test suite let alone crash the kernel.
>
> This may be another case of whether a kunit_module is approximately a
> single KUNIT_EXPECT_*() or a larger number of them.
>
> I still want, for example, of_unittest_property_string() to include a large
> number of KUNIT_EXPECT_*() instances. In that case I still want the rest of
> the tests in the kunit_module to be executed even after a KUNIT_ASSERT_*()
> fails. The existing test code has that property.

Sure, in the context of the reply you just sent me on the DT unittest
thread, that makes sense. I can pull out all but the ones that would
have terminated the collection of test cases (where you return early),
if that makes it better.