Re: [PATCH 00/17] nolibc: add preliminary self tests

Willy Tarreau
2022-07-20T16:21:18Z

On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 11:03:58PM +0700, Ammar Faizi wrote:
> On 7/20/22 4:44 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > I'm obviously interested in comments, but really, I don't want to
> > overdesign something for a first step, it remains a very modest test
> > program and I'd like that it remains easy to hack on it and to contribute
> > new tests that are deemed useful.
>
> I personally hate how the test framework mandates:
>
> "There must be exactly one test per line."

I know, that's a design choice that makes them trivial to add, because
it's the compiler that assigns the test IDs, and it comes with a non
negligible benefit.

> which makes the test case, for example, one long liner like this:
>
> if ((p1 = p2 = sbrk(4096)) != (void *)-1) p2 = sbrk(-4096); EXPECT_SYSZR(1, (p2 == (void *)-1) || p2 == p1); break;
>
> that's ugly and hard to read. Can we get rid of this "one test per line" rule?

If you find a better solution, I'm open. What I certainly don't want
to do is to have to cross-reference IDs with arrays, nor start to stack
endless if/else that are even more painful to deal with, or have to
renumber everything by hand once in a while.

> It would be great if we followed the documented coding style that says:
>
> "Statements longer than 80 columns should be broken into sensible chunks,
> unless exceeding 80 columns significantly increases readability and does
> not hide information." [1]

Admittedly this is not core code but debugging code running in userland
to help developers spot bugs in their code which is somewhere else and
well maintained. I personally think that the tradeoff is positive here,
i.e. non-pretty but easily hackable short tests that encourage additions
and variations. The ease of adding tests allowed me to create 71 of them
in a single afternoon and two of them brought me bugs in existing code,
which I think is efficient. But I'm not fond of the approach either, I
just couldn't produce anything as efficient that was prettier, but I'm
quite open to being proven wrong by an alternate proposal.

> What we have here doesn't really increase the readability at all. Maybe
> it's too late for 5.20, just for next in case we want to fix it.

The goal was not to increase *readability* but *writability*. We're
still missing test for most syscalls and I would like them to be added
quickly so that we can continue to add tested code. The readability I
care about is understanding the output. When I'm seeing:

...
29 execve_root = -1 EACCES [OK]
30 getdents64_root = -1 EBADF [FAIL]
31 getdents64_null = -1 EBADF != (-1 ENOTDIR) [FAIL]
32 gettimeofday_null = 0 [OK]
...

on riscv64, I don't have to search long to figure that we did something
wrong with getdents64() on this arch and that the error path works
differently. Similarly, this on mips:

8 kill_CONT = 0 [OK]
9 kill_BADPID = -1 ESRCH [OK]
10 sbrkdo_page_fault(): sending SIGSEGV to init for invalid read access from 0000000a
epc = 0000000a in init[400000+4000]
ra = 0000000a in init[400000+4000]
Kernel panic - not syncing: Attempted to kill init! exitcode=0x0000000b

tells me that sbrk() definitely doesn't work there.

In both cases I know what and where to look without even having to *read*
that test. This does matter to me, as a developer of the component subject
to the test.

But again, I'm open to better proposals. I reached the limits of my
imagination there, but I do value the ability to "yyp" one line, change
two arguments and gain one extra test for a different combination, and
I really do not want to lose that simplicity. Note that for more complex
tests, it's trivial to add a dedicated function and that's what was done
for getdents64() which also serves as an example.

Willy