| Message ID | 20190812182421.141150-10-brendanhiggins@google.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework | expand |
Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-08-12 11:24:12) > diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h > index 2625bcfeb19ac..93381f841e09f 100644 > --- a/include/kunit/test.h > +++ b/include/kunit/test.h > @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ > #include <linux/types.h> > #include <linux/slab.h> > #include <kunit/assert.h> > +#include <kunit/try-catch.h> > > struct kunit_resource; > > @@ -167,6 +168,7 @@ struct kunit { > > /* private: internal use only. */ > const char *name; /* Read only after initialization! */ > + struct kunit_try_catch try_catch; > /* > * success starts as true, and may only be set to false during a test > * case; thus, it is safe to update this across multiple threads using > @@ -176,6 +178,11 @@ struct kunit { > */ > bool success; /* Read only after test_case finishes! */ > spinlock_t lock; /* Gaurds all mutable test state. */ > + /* > + * death_test may be both set and unset from multiple threads in a test > + * case. > + */ > + bool death_test; /* Protected by lock. */ > /* > * Because resources is a list that may be updated multiple times (with > * new resources) from any thread associated with a test case, we must > @@ -184,6 +191,13 @@ struct kunit { > struct list_head resources; /* Protected by lock. */ > }; > > +static inline void kunit_set_death_test(struct kunit *test, bool death_test) > +{ > + spin_lock(&test->lock); > + test->death_test = death_test; > + spin_unlock(&test->lock); > +} These getters and setters are using spinlocks again. It doesn't make any sense. It probably needs a rework like was done for the other bool member, success. > + > void kunit_init_test(struct kunit *test, const char *name); > > int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite); > diff --git a/include/kunit/try-catch.h b/include/kunit/try-catch.h > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000000000..8a414a9af0b64 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/include/kunit/try-catch.h > @@ -0,0 +1,69 @@ > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */ > +/* > + * An API to allow a function, that may fail, to be executed, and recover in a > + * controlled manner. > + * > + * Copyright (C) 2019, Google LLC. > + * Author: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com> > + */ > + > +#ifndef _KUNIT_TRY_CATCH_H > +#define _KUNIT_TRY_CATCH_H > + > +#include <linux/types.h> > + > +typedef void (*kunit_try_catch_func_t)(void *); > + > +struct kunit; Forward declare struct completion? > + > +/* > + * struct kunit_try_catch - provides a generic way to run code which might fail. > + * @context: used to pass user data to the try and catch functions. > + * > + * kunit_try_catch provides a generic, architecture independent way to execute > + * an arbitrary function of type kunit_try_catch_func_t which may bail out by > + * calling kunit_try_catch_throw(). If kunit_try_catch_throw() is called, @try > + * is stopped at the site of invocation and @catch is catch is called. > + * > + * struct kunit_try_catch provides a generic interface for the functionality > + * needed to implement kunit->abort() which in turn is needed for implementing > + * assertions. Assertions allow stating a precondition for a test simplifying > + * how test cases are written and presented. > + * > + * Assertions are like expectations, except they abort (call > + * kunit_try_catch_throw()) when the specified condition is not met. This is > + * useful when you look at a test case as a logical statement about some piece > + * of code, where assertions are the premises for the test case, and the > + * conclusion is a set of predicates, rather expectations, that must all be > + * true. If your premises are violated, it does not makes sense to continue. > + */ > +struct kunit_try_catch { > + /* private: internal use only. */ > + struct kunit *test; > + struct completion *try_completion; > + int try_result; > + kunit_try_catch_func_t try; > + kunit_try_catch_func_t catch; Can these other variables be documented in the kernel doc? And should context be marked as 'public'? > + void *context; > +}; > + > +void kunit_try_catch_init(struct kunit_try_catch *try_catch, > + struct kunit *test, > + kunit_try_catch_func_t try, > + kunit_try_catch_func_t catch); > + > +void kunit_try_catch_run(struct kunit_try_catch *try_catch, void *context); > + > +void __noreturn kunit_try_catch_throw(struct kunit_try_catch *try_catch); > + > +static inline int kunit_try_catch_get_result(struct kunit_try_catch *try_catch) > +{ > + return try_catch->try_result; > +} > + > +/* > + * Exposed for testing only. Ugh that's sad. I hope we don't expose more functions just for testing in other cases. > + */ > +void kunit_generic_try_catch_init(struct kunit_try_catch *try_catch); > + > +#endif /* _KUNIT_TRY_CATCH_H */ > diff --git a/kunit/test.c b/kunit/test.c > index e5080a2c6b29c..995cb53fe4ee9 100644 > --- a/kunit/test.c > +++ b/kunit/test.c > @@ -7,13 +7,26 @@ > */ > > #include <linux/kernel.h> > +#include <linux/sched/debug.h> > #include <kunit/test.h> > +#include <kunit/try-catch.h> > > static void kunit_set_failure(struct kunit *test) > { > WRITE_ONCE(test->success, false); > } > > +static bool kunit_get_death_test(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + bool death_test; > + > + spin_lock(&test->lock); > + death_test = test->death_test; > + spin_unlock(&test->lock); > + > + return death_test; > +} > + > static int kunit_vprintk_emit(int level, const char *fmt, va_list args) > { > return vprintk_emit(0, level, NULL, 0, fmt, args); > @@ -158,6 +171,21 @@ static void kunit_fail(struct kunit *test, struct kunit_assert *assert) > kunit_print_string_stream(test, stream); > } > > +void __noreturn kunit_abort(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + kunit_set_death_test(test, true); > + > + kunit_try_catch_throw(&test->try_catch); > + > + /* > + * Throw could not abort from test. > + * > + * XXX: we should never reach this line! As kunit_try_catch_throw is > + * marked __noreturn. > + */ > + WARN_ONCE(true, "Throw could not abort from test!\n"); Should this just be a BUG_ON? It's supposedly impossible. > +} > + > void kunit_do_assertion(struct kunit *test, > struct kunit_assert *assert, > bool pass, > @@ -176,6 +204,9 @@ void kunit_do_assertion(struct kunit *test, > kunit_fail(test, assert); > > va_end(args); > + > + if (assert->type == KUNIT_ASSERTION) > + kunit_abort(test); > } > > void kunit_init_test(struct kunit *test, const char *name) > @@ -184,36 +215,154 @@ void kunit_init_test(struct kunit *test, const char *name) > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&test->resources); > test->name = name; > test->success = true; > + test->death_test = false; > } > > /* > - * Performs all logic to run a test case. > + * Initializes and runs test case. Does not clean up or do post validations. > */ > -static void kunit_run_case(struct kunit_suite *suite, > - struct kunit_case *test_case) > +static void kunit_run_case_internal(struct kunit *test, > + struct kunit_suite *suite, > + struct kunit_case *test_case) > { > - struct kunit test; > - > - kunit_init_test(&test, test_case->name); > - > if (suite->init) { > int ret; > > - ret = suite->init(&test); > + ret = suite->init(test); > if (ret) { > - kunit_err(&test, "failed to initialize: %d\n", ret); > - kunit_set_failure(&test); > - test_case->success = test.success; > + kunit_err(test, "failed to initialize: %d\n", ret); > + kunit_set_failure(test); > return; > } > } > > - test_case->run_case(&test); > + test_case->run_case(test); > +} > + > +static void kunit_case_internal_cleanup(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + kunit_cleanup(test); > +} > > +/* > + * Performs post validations and cleanup after a test case was run. > + * XXX: Should ONLY BE CALLED AFTER kunit_run_case_internal! > + */ > +static void kunit_run_case_cleanup(struct kunit *test, > + struct kunit_suite *suite) > +{ > if (suite->exit) > - suite->exit(&test); > + suite->exit(test); > + > + kunit_case_internal_cleanup(test); > +} > + > +/* > + * Handles an unexpected crash in a test case. > + */ > +static void kunit_handle_test_crash(struct kunit *test, > + struct kunit_suite *suite, > + struct kunit_case *test_case) > +{ > + kunit_err(test, "kunit test case crashed!"); Does this need a newline? > + /* > + * TODO(brendanhiggins@google.com): This prints the stack trace up > + * through this frame, not up to the frame that caused the crash. > + */ > + show_stack(NULL, NULL); > + > + kunit_case_internal_cleanup(test); > +} > + > +struct kunit_try_catch_context { > + struct kunit *test; > + struct kunit_suite *suite; > + struct kunit_case *test_case; > +}; > + > +static void kunit_try_run_case(void *data) > +{ > + struct kunit_try_catch_context *ctx = data; > + struct kunit *test = ctx->test; > + struct kunit_suite *suite = ctx->suite; > + struct kunit_case *test_case = ctx->test_case; > + > + /* > + * kunit_run_case_internal may encounter a fatal error; if it does, > + * abort will be called, this thread will exit, and finally the parent > + * thread will resume control and handle any necessary clean up. > + */ > + kunit_run_case_internal(test, suite, test_case); > + /* This line may never be reached. */ > + kunit_run_case_cleanup(test, suite); > +} > + > +static void kunit_catch_run_case(void *data) > +{ > + struct kunit_try_catch_context *ctx = data; > + struct kunit *test = ctx->test; > + struct kunit_suite *suite = ctx->suite; > + struct kunit_case *test_case = ctx->test_case; > + int try_exit_code = kunit_try_catch_get_result(&test->try_catch); > + > + if (try_exit_code) { > + kunit_set_failure(test); > + /* > + * Test case could not finish, we have no idea what state it is > + * in, so don't do clean up. > + */ > + if (try_exit_code == -ETIMEDOUT) > + kunit_err(test, "test case timed out\n"); > + /* > + * Unknown internal error occurred preventing test case from > + * running, so there is nothing to clean up. > + */ > + else > + kunit_err(test, "internal error occurred preventing test case from running: %d\n", > + try_exit_code); Nitpick: I would add braces here because you make the if statement into multi-line arms for each case. > + return; > + } > + > + if (kunit_get_death_test(test)) { > + /* > + * EXPECTED DEATH: kunit_run_case_internal encountered > + * anticipated fatal error. Everything should be in a safe > + * state. > + */ > + kunit_run_case_cleanup(test, suite); > + } else { > + /* > + * UNEXPECTED DEATH: kunit_run_case_internal encountered an > + * unanticipated fatal error. We have no idea what the state of > + * the test case is in. > + */ > + kunit_handle_test_crash(test, suite, test_case); > + kunit_set_failure(test); Like was done here. > + } > +} > + > +/* > + * Performs all logic to run a test case. It also catches most errors that > + * occurs in a test case and reports them as failures. s/occurs/occur/ > + */ > +static void kunit_run_case_catch_errors(struct kunit_suite *suite, [...] > diff --git a/kunit/try-catch.c b/kunit/try-catch.c > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000000000..de580f074387b > --- /dev/null > +++ b/kunit/try-catch.c > @@ -0,0 +1,95 @@ > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > +/* > + * An API to allow a function, that may fail, to be executed, and recover in a > + * controlled manner. > + * > + * Copyright (C) 2019, Google LLC. > + * Author: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com> > + */ > + > +#include <kunit/try-catch.h> > +#include <kunit/test.h> > +#include <linux/completion.h> > +#include <linux/kthread.h> > + > +void __noreturn kunit_try_catch_throw(struct kunit_try_catch *try_catch) > +{ > + try_catch->try_result = -EFAULT; > + complete_and_exit(try_catch->try_completion, -EFAULT); > +} > + > +static int kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter(void *data) > +{ > + struct kunit_try_catch *try_catch = data; > + > + try_catch->try(try_catch->context); > + > + complete_and_exit(try_catch->try_completion, 0); > +} > + > +void kunit_try_catch_run(struct kunit_try_catch *try_catch, void *context) > +{ > + DECLARE_COMPLETION_ONSTACK(try_completion); > + struct kunit *test = try_catch->test; > + struct task_struct *task_struct; > + int exit_code, status; > + > + try_catch->context = context; > + try_catch->try_completion = &try_completion; > + try_catch->try_result = 0; > + task_struct = kthread_run(kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter, > + try_catch, > + "kunit_try_catch_thread"); > + if (IS_ERR(task_struct)) { > + try_catch->catch(try_catch->context); > + return; > + } > + > + /* > + * TODO(brendanhiggins@google.com): We should probably have some type of > + * variable timeout here. The only question is what that timeout value > + * should be. > + * > + * The intention has always been, at some point, to be able to label > + * tests with some type of size bucket (unit/small, integration/medium, > + * large/system/end-to-end, etc), where each size bucket would get a > + * default timeout value kind of like what Bazel does: > + * https://docs.bazel.build/versions/master/be/common-definitions.html#test.size > + * There is still some debate to be had on exactly how we do this. (For > + * one, we probably want to have some sort of test runner level > + * timeout.) > + * > + * For more background on this topic, see: > + * https://mike-bland.com/2011/11/01/small-medium-large.html > + */ > + status = wait_for_completion_timeout(&try_completion, > + 300 * MSEC_PER_SEC); /* 5 min */ > + if (status < 0) { wait_for_completion_timeout() doesn't return a negative value on timeout. It returns 0. Please rename 'status' to 'time_remaining' and test with if (!time_remaining) instead or some other suitably named variable name indicating that the return value is the time remaining before the timeout. May also want to clamp this to the hung task timeout value, which is typically less than 5 minutes. Otherwise, the hung task detector may find the problem first before this timeout happens. > + kunit_err(test, "try timed out\n"); > + try_catch->try_result = -ETIMEDOUT; > + }
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 9:22 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org> wrote: > > Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-08-12 11:24:12) > > diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h > > index 2625bcfeb19ac..93381f841e09f 100644 > > --- a/include/kunit/test.h > > +++ b/include/kunit/test.h > > @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ > > #include <linux/types.h> > > #include <linux/slab.h> > > #include <kunit/assert.h> > > +#include <kunit/try-catch.h> > > > > struct kunit_resource; > > > > @@ -167,6 +168,7 @@ struct kunit { > > > > /* private: internal use only. */ > > const char *name; /* Read only after initialization! */ > > + struct kunit_try_catch try_catch; > > /* > > * success starts as true, and may only be set to false during a test > > * case; thus, it is safe to update this across multiple threads using > > @@ -176,6 +178,11 @@ struct kunit { > > */ > > bool success; /* Read only after test_case finishes! */ > > spinlock_t lock; /* Gaurds all mutable test state. */ > > + /* > > + * death_test may be both set and unset from multiple threads in a test > > + * case. > > + */ > > + bool death_test; /* Protected by lock. */ > > /* > > * Because resources is a list that may be updated multiple times (with > > * new resources) from any thread associated with a test case, we must > > @@ -184,6 +191,13 @@ struct kunit { > > struct list_head resources; /* Protected by lock. */ > > }; > > > > +static inline void kunit_set_death_test(struct kunit *test, bool death_test) > > +{ > > + spin_lock(&test->lock); > > + test->death_test = death_test; > > + spin_unlock(&test->lock); > > +} > > These getters and setters are using spinlocks again. It doesn't make any > sense. It probably needs a rework like was done for the other bool > member, success. No, this is intentional. death_test can transition from false to true and then back to false within the same test. Maybe that deserves a comment? > > + > > void kunit_init_test(struct kunit *test, const char *name); > > > > int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite); > > diff --git a/include/kunit/try-catch.h b/include/kunit/try-catch.h > > new file mode 100644 > > index 0000000000000..8a414a9af0b64 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/include/kunit/try-catch.h > > @@ -0,0 +1,69 @@ > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */ > > +/* > > + * An API to allow a function, that may fail, to be executed, and recover in a > > + * controlled manner. > > + * > > + * Copyright (C) 2019, Google LLC. > > + * Author: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com> > > + */ > > + > > +#ifndef _KUNIT_TRY_CATCH_H > > +#define _KUNIT_TRY_CATCH_H > > + > > +#include <linux/types.h> > > + > > +typedef void (*kunit_try_catch_func_t)(void *); > > + > > +struct kunit; > > Forward declare struct completion? Sure. Will do. > > + > > +/* > > + * struct kunit_try_catch - provides a generic way to run code which might fail. > > + * @context: used to pass user data to the try and catch functions. > > + * > > + * kunit_try_catch provides a generic, architecture independent way to execute > > + * an arbitrary function of type kunit_try_catch_func_t which may bail out by > > + * calling kunit_try_catch_throw(). If kunit_try_catch_throw() is called, @try > > + * is stopped at the site of invocation and @catch is catch is called. > > + * > > + * struct kunit_try_catch provides a generic interface for the functionality > > + * needed to implement kunit->abort() which in turn is needed for implementing > > + * assertions. Assertions allow stating a precondition for a test simplifying > > + * how test cases are written and presented. > > + * > > + * Assertions are like expectations, except they abort (call > > + * kunit_try_catch_throw()) when the specified condition is not met. This is > > + * useful when you look at a test case as a logical statement about some piece > > + * of code, where assertions are the premises for the test case, and the > > + * conclusion is a set of predicates, rather expectations, that must all be > > + * true. If your premises are violated, it does not makes sense to continue. > > + */ > > +struct kunit_try_catch { > > + /* private: internal use only. */ > > + struct kunit *test; > > + struct completion *try_completion; > > + int try_result; > > + kunit_try_catch_func_t try; > > + kunit_try_catch_func_t catch; > > Can these other variables be documented in the kernel doc? And should > context be marked as 'public'? Sure, I can document them. But I don't think context should be public; it should only be accessed by kunit_try_catch_* functions. context should only be populated by *_init, and will be passed into *try and *catch when they are called internally. > > + void *context; > > +}; > > + > > +void kunit_try_catch_init(struct kunit_try_catch *try_catch, > > + struct kunit *test, > > + kunit_try_catch_func_t try, > > + kunit_try_catch_func_t catch); > > + > > +void kunit_try_catch_run(struct kunit_try_catch *try_catch, void *context); > > + > > +void __noreturn kunit_try_catch_throw(struct kunit_try_catch *try_catch); > > + > > +static inline int kunit_try_catch_get_result(struct kunit_try_catch *try_catch) > > +{ > > + return try_catch->try_result; > > +} > > + > > +/* > > + * Exposed for testing only. > > Ugh that's sad. I hope we don't expose more functions just for testing > in other cases. I don't think I am in any other cases in this patchset. I agree that it is generally bad to expose a private function for testing purposes, but I didn't see a better way here. > > + */ > > +void kunit_generic_try_catch_init(struct kunit_try_catch *try_catch); > > + > > +#endif /* _KUNIT_TRY_CATCH_H */ > > diff --git a/kunit/test.c b/kunit/test.c > > index e5080a2c6b29c..995cb53fe4ee9 100644 > > --- a/kunit/test.c > > +++ b/kunit/test.c > > @@ -7,13 +7,26 @@ > > */ > > > > #include <linux/kernel.h> > > +#include <linux/sched/debug.h> > > #include <kunit/test.h> > > +#include <kunit/try-catch.h> > > > > static void kunit_set_failure(struct kunit *test) > > { > > WRITE_ONCE(test->success, false); > > } > > > > +static bool kunit_get_death_test(struct kunit *test) > > +{ > > + bool death_test; > > + > > + spin_lock(&test->lock); > > + death_test = test->death_test; > > + spin_unlock(&test->lock); > > + > > + return death_test; > > +} > > + > > static int kunit_vprintk_emit(int level, const char *fmt, va_list args) > > { > > return vprintk_emit(0, level, NULL, 0, fmt, args); > > @@ -158,6 +171,21 @@ static void kunit_fail(struct kunit *test, struct kunit_assert *assert) > > kunit_print_string_stream(test, stream); > > } > > > > +void __noreturn kunit_abort(struct kunit *test) > > +{ > > + kunit_set_death_test(test, true); > > + > > + kunit_try_catch_throw(&test->try_catch); > > + > > + /* > > + * Throw could not abort from test. > > + * > > + * XXX: we should never reach this line! As kunit_try_catch_throw is > > + * marked __noreturn. > > + */ > > + WARN_ONCE(true, "Throw could not abort from test!\n"); > > Should this just be a BUG_ON? It's supposedly impossible. It should be impossible; it will only reach this line if there is a bug in kunit_try_catch_throw. The reason I didn't use BUG_ON was because I previously got yelled at for having BUG_ON in this code path. Nevertheless, I think BUG_ON is more correct, so if you will stand by it, then that's what I will do. > > +} > > + > > void kunit_do_assertion(struct kunit *test, > > struct kunit_assert *assert, > > bool pass, > > @@ -176,6 +204,9 @@ void kunit_do_assertion(struct kunit *test, > > kunit_fail(test, assert); > > > > va_end(args); > > + > > + if (assert->type == KUNIT_ASSERTION) > > + kunit_abort(test); > > } > > > > void kunit_init_test(struct kunit *test, const char *name) > > @@ -184,36 +215,154 @@ void kunit_init_test(struct kunit *test, const char *name) > > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&test->resources); > > test->name = name; > > test->success = true; > > + test->death_test = false; > > } > > > > /* > > - * Performs all logic to run a test case. > > + * Initializes and runs test case. Does not clean up or do post validations. > > */ > > -static void kunit_run_case(struct kunit_suite *suite, > > - struct kunit_case *test_case) > > +static void kunit_run_case_internal(struct kunit *test, > > + struct kunit_suite *suite, > > + struct kunit_case *test_case) > > { > > - struct kunit test; > > - > > - kunit_init_test(&test, test_case->name); > > - > > if (suite->init) { > > int ret; > > > > - ret = suite->init(&test); > > + ret = suite->init(test); > > if (ret) { > > - kunit_err(&test, "failed to initialize: %d\n", ret); > > - kunit_set_failure(&test); > > - test_case->success = test.success; > > + kunit_err(test, "failed to initialize: %d\n", ret); > > + kunit_set_failure(test); > > return; > > } > > } > > > > - test_case->run_case(&test); > > + test_case->run_case(test); > > +} > > + > > +static void kunit_case_internal_cleanup(struct kunit *test) > > +{ > > + kunit_cleanup(test); > > +} > > > > +/* > > + * Performs post validations and cleanup after a test case was run. > > + * XXX: Should ONLY BE CALLED AFTER kunit_run_case_internal! > > + */ > > +static void kunit_run_case_cleanup(struct kunit *test, > > + struct kunit_suite *suite) > > +{ > > if (suite->exit) > > - suite->exit(&test); > > + suite->exit(test); > > + > > + kunit_case_internal_cleanup(test); > > +} > > + > > +/* > > + * Handles an unexpected crash in a test case. > > + */ > > +static void kunit_handle_test_crash(struct kunit *test, > > + struct kunit_suite *suite, > > + struct kunit_case *test_case) > > +{ > > + kunit_err(test, "kunit test case crashed!"); > > Does this need a newline? Yep, nice catch. I thought I grepped for all the instance a while ago, but I apparently missed this one. > > + /* > > + * TODO(brendanhiggins@google.com): This prints the stack trace up > > + * through this frame, not up to the frame that caused the crash. > > + */ > > + show_stack(NULL, NULL); > > + > > + kunit_case_internal_cleanup(test); > > +} > > + > > +struct kunit_try_catch_context { > > + struct kunit *test; > > + struct kunit_suite *suite; > > + struct kunit_case *test_case; > > +}; > > + > > +static void kunit_try_run_case(void *data) > > +{ > > + struct kunit_try_catch_context *ctx = data; > > + struct kunit *test = ctx->test; > > + struct kunit_suite *suite = ctx->suite; > > + struct kunit_case *test_case = ctx->test_case; > > + > > + /* > > + * kunit_run_case_internal may encounter a fatal error; if it does, > > + * abort will be called, this thread will exit, and finally the parent > > + * thread will resume control and handle any necessary clean up. > > + */ > > + kunit_run_case_internal(test, suite, test_case); > > + /* This line may never be reached. */ > > + kunit_run_case_cleanup(test, suite); > > +} > > + > > +static void kunit_catch_run_case(void *data) > > +{ > > + struct kunit_try_catch_context *ctx = data; > > + struct kunit *test = ctx->test; > > + struct kunit_suite *suite = ctx->suite; > > + struct kunit_case *test_case = ctx->test_case; > > + int try_exit_code = kunit_try_catch_get_result(&test->try_catch); > > + > > + if (try_exit_code) { > > + kunit_set_failure(test); > > + /* > > + * Test case could not finish, we have no idea what state it is > > + * in, so don't do clean up. > > + */ > > + if (try_exit_code == -ETIMEDOUT) > > + kunit_err(test, "test case timed out\n"); > > + /* > > + * Unknown internal error occurred preventing test case from > > + * running, so there is nothing to clean up. > > + */ > > + else > > + kunit_err(test, "internal error occurred preventing test case from running: %d\n", > > + try_exit_code); > > Nitpick: I would add braces here because you make the if statement into > multi-line arms for each case. Will do. I think it looks better with braces anyway. > > + return; > > + } > > + > > + if (kunit_get_death_test(test)) { > > + /* > > + * EXPECTED DEATH: kunit_run_case_internal encountered > > + * anticipated fatal error. Everything should be in a safe > > + * state. > > + */ > > + kunit_run_case_cleanup(test, suite); > > + } else { > > + /* > > + * UNEXPECTED DEATH: kunit_run_case_internal encountered an > > + * unanticipated fatal error. We have no idea what the state of > > + * the test case is in. > > + */ > > + kunit_handle_test_crash(test, suite, test_case); > > + kunit_set_failure(test); > > Like was done here. Sorry, like what? > > + } > > +} > > + > > +/* > > + * Performs all logic to run a test case. It also catches most errors that > > + * occurs in a test case and reports them as failures. > > s/occurs/occur/ Damn, I should go over all these with spell check. Will fix, thanks! > > + */ > > +static void kunit_run_case_catch_errors(struct kunit_suite *suite, > [...] > > diff --git a/kunit/try-catch.c b/kunit/try-catch.c > > new file mode 100644 > > index 0000000000000..de580f074387b > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/kunit/try-catch.c > > @@ -0,0 +1,95 @@ > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > +/* > > + * An API to allow a function, that may fail, to be executed, and recover in a > > + * controlled manner. > > + * > > + * Copyright (C) 2019, Google LLC. > > + * Author: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com> > > + */ > > + > > +#include <kunit/try-catch.h> > > +#include <kunit/test.h> > > +#include <linux/completion.h> > > +#include <linux/kthread.h> > > + > > +void __noreturn kunit_try_catch_throw(struct kunit_try_catch *try_catch) > > +{ > > + try_catch->try_result = -EFAULT; > > + complete_and_exit(try_catch->try_completion, -EFAULT); > > +} > > + > > +static int kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter(void *data) > > +{ > > + struct kunit_try_catch *try_catch = data; > > + > > + try_catch->try(try_catch->context); > > + > > + complete_and_exit(try_catch->try_completion, 0); > > +} > > + > > +void kunit_try_catch_run(struct kunit_try_catch *try_catch, void *context) > > +{ > > + DECLARE_COMPLETION_ONSTACK(try_completion); > > + struct kunit *test = try_catch->test; > > + struct task_struct *task_struct; > > + int exit_code, status; > > + > > + try_catch->context = context; > > + try_catch->try_completion = &try_completion; > > + try_catch->try_result = 0; > > + task_struct = kthread_run(kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter, > > + try_catch, > > + "kunit_try_catch_thread"); > > + if (IS_ERR(task_struct)) { > > + try_catch->catch(try_catch->context); > > + return; > > + } > > + > > + /* > > + * TODO(brendanhiggins@google.com): We should probably have some type of > > + * variable timeout here. The only question is what that timeout value > > + * should be. > > + * > > + * The intention has always been, at some point, to be able to label > > + * tests with some type of size bucket (unit/small, integration/medium, > > + * large/system/end-to-end, etc), where each size bucket would get a > > + * default timeout value kind of like what Bazel does: > > + * https://docs.bazel.build/versions/master/be/common-definitions.html#test.size > > + * There is still some debate to be had on exactly how we do this. (For > > + * one, we probably want to have some sort of test runner level > > + * timeout.) > > + * > > + * For more background on this topic, see: > > + * https://mike-bland.com/2011/11/01/small-medium-large.html > > + */ > > + status = wait_for_completion_timeout(&try_completion, > > + 300 * MSEC_PER_SEC); /* 5 min */ > > + if (status < 0) { > > wait_for_completion_timeout() doesn't return a negative value on > timeout. It returns 0. Please rename 'status' to 'time_remaining' and > test with if (!time_remaining) instead or some other suitably named > variable name indicating that the return value is the time remaining > before the timeout. Crap, I knew that. Sorry, I wasn't thinking. > May also want to clamp this to the hung task timeout value, which is > typically less than 5 minutes. Otherwise, the hung task detector may > find the problem first before this timeout happens. Makes sense. Will fix. > > + kunit_err(test, "try timed out\n"); > > + try_catch->try_result = -ETIMEDOUT; > > + }
Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-08-12 21:57:55) > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 9:22 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-08-12 11:24:12) > > > diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h > > > index 2625bcfeb19ac..93381f841e09f 100644 > > > --- a/include/kunit/test.h > > > +++ b/include/kunit/test.h > > > @@ -176,6 +178,11 @@ struct kunit { > > > */ > > > bool success; /* Read only after test_case finishes! */ > > > spinlock_t lock; /* Gaurds all mutable test state. */ > > > + /* > > > + * death_test may be both set and unset from multiple threads in a test > > > + * case. > > > + */ > > > + bool death_test; /* Protected by lock. */ > > > /* > > > * Because resources is a list that may be updated multiple times (with > > > * new resources) from any thread associated with a test case, we must > > > @@ -184,6 +191,13 @@ struct kunit { > > > struct list_head resources; /* Protected by lock. */ > > > }; > > > > > > +static inline void kunit_set_death_test(struct kunit *test, bool death_test) > > > +{ > > > + spin_lock(&test->lock); > > > + test->death_test = death_test; > > > + spin_unlock(&test->lock); > > > +} > > > > These getters and setters are using spinlocks again. It doesn't make any > > sense. It probably needs a rework like was done for the other bool > > member, success. > > No, this is intentional. death_test can transition from false to true > and then back to false within the same test. Maybe that deserves a > comment? Yes. How does it transition from true to false again? Either way, having a spinlock around a read/write API doesn't make sense because it just makes sure that two writes don't overlap, but otherwise does nothing to keep things synchronized. For example a set to true after a set to false when the two calls to set true or false aren't synchronized means they can happen in any order. So I don't see how it needs a spinlock. The lock needs to be one level higher. > > > > + > > > void kunit_init_test(struct kunit *test, const char *name); > > > > > > int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite); > > > diff --git a/include/kunit/try-catch.h b/include/kunit/try-catch.h > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 0000000000000..8a414a9af0b64 > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/include/kunit/try-catch.h [...] > > > + > > > +/* > > > + * struct kunit_try_catch - provides a generic way to run code which might fail. > > > + * @context: used to pass user data to the try and catch functions. > > > + * > > > + * kunit_try_catch provides a generic, architecture independent way to execute > > > + * an arbitrary function of type kunit_try_catch_func_t which may bail out by > > > + * calling kunit_try_catch_throw(). If kunit_try_catch_throw() is called, @try > > > + * is stopped at the site of invocation and @catch is catch is called. > > > + * > > > + * struct kunit_try_catch provides a generic interface for the functionality > > > + * needed to implement kunit->abort() which in turn is needed for implementing > > > + * assertions. Assertions allow stating a precondition for a test simplifying > > > + * how test cases are written and presented. > > > + * > > > + * Assertions are like expectations, except they abort (call > > > + * kunit_try_catch_throw()) when the specified condition is not met. This is > > > + * useful when you look at a test case as a logical statement about some piece > > > + * of code, where assertions are the premises for the test case, and the > > > + * conclusion is a set of predicates, rather expectations, that must all be > > > + * true. If your premises are violated, it does not makes sense to continue. > > > + */ > > > +struct kunit_try_catch { > > > + /* private: internal use only. */ > > > + struct kunit *test; > > > + struct completion *try_completion; > > > + int try_result; > > > + kunit_try_catch_func_t try; > > > + kunit_try_catch_func_t catch; > > > > Can these other variables be documented in the kernel doc? And should > > context be marked as 'public'? > > Sure, I can document them. > > But I don't think context should be public; it should only be accessed > by kunit_try_catch_* functions. context should only be populated by > *_init, and will be passed into *try and *catch when they are called > internally. Ok. Then I guess just document them all but keep them all marked as private. > > > > + */ > > > +void kunit_generic_try_catch_init(struct kunit_try_catch *try_catch); > > > + > > > +#endif /* _KUNIT_TRY_CATCH_H */ > > > diff --git a/kunit/test.c b/kunit/test.c > > > index e5080a2c6b29c..995cb53fe4ee9 100644 > > > --- a/kunit/test.c > > > +++ b/kunit/test.c > > > @@ -158,6 +171,21 @@ static void kunit_fail(struct kunit *test, struct kunit_assert *assert) > > > kunit_print_string_stream(test, stream); > > > } > > > > > > +void __noreturn kunit_abort(struct kunit *test) > > > +{ > > > + kunit_set_death_test(test, true); > > > + > > > + kunit_try_catch_throw(&test->try_catch); > > > + > > > + /* > > > + * Throw could not abort from test. > > > + * > > > + * XXX: we should never reach this line! As kunit_try_catch_throw is > > > + * marked __noreturn. > > > + */ > > > + WARN_ONCE(true, "Throw could not abort from test!\n"); > > > > Should this just be a BUG_ON? It's supposedly impossible. > > It should be impossible; it will only reach this line if there is a > bug in kunit_try_catch_throw. The reason I didn't use BUG_ON was > because I previously got yelled at for having BUG_ON in this code > path. > > Nevertheless, I think BUG_ON is more correct, so if you will stand by > it, then that's what I will do. Yeah BUG_ON is appropriate here and self documenting so please use it. > > > > + return; > > > + } > > > + > > > + if (kunit_get_death_test(test)) { > > > + /* > > > + * EXPECTED DEATH: kunit_run_case_internal encountered > > > + * anticipated fatal error. Everything should be in a safe > > > + * state. > > > + */ > > > + kunit_run_case_cleanup(test, suite); > > > + } else { > > > + /* > > > + * UNEXPECTED DEATH: kunit_run_case_internal encountered an > > > + * unanticipated fatal error. We have no idea what the state of > > > + * the test case is in. > > > + */ > > > + kunit_handle_test_crash(test, suite, test_case); > > > + kunit_set_failure(test); > > > > Like was done here. > > Sorry, like what? Just saying this has braces for the if-else.
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 10:56 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org> wrote: > > Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-08-12 21:57:55) > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 9:22 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-08-12 11:24:12) > > > > diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h > > > > index 2625bcfeb19ac..93381f841e09f 100644 > > > > --- a/include/kunit/test.h > > > > +++ b/include/kunit/test.h > > > > @@ -176,6 +178,11 @@ struct kunit { > > > > */ > > > > bool success; /* Read only after test_case finishes! */ > > > > spinlock_t lock; /* Gaurds all mutable test state. */ > > > > + /* > > > > + * death_test may be both set and unset from multiple threads in a test > > > > + * case. > > > > + */ > > > > + bool death_test; /* Protected by lock. */ > > > > /* > > > > * Because resources is a list that may be updated multiple times (with > > > > * new resources) from any thread associated with a test case, we must > > > > @@ -184,6 +191,13 @@ struct kunit { > > > > struct list_head resources; /* Protected by lock. */ > > > > }; > > > > > > > > +static inline void kunit_set_death_test(struct kunit *test, bool death_test) > > > > +{ > > > > + spin_lock(&test->lock); > > > > + test->death_test = death_test; > > > > + spin_unlock(&test->lock); > > > > +} > > > > > > These getters and setters are using spinlocks again. It doesn't make any > > > sense. It probably needs a rework like was done for the other bool > > > member, success. > > > > No, this is intentional. death_test can transition from false to true > > and then back to false within the same test. Maybe that deserves a > > comment? > > Yes. How does it transition from true to false again? The purpose is to tell try_catch that it was expected for the test to bail out. Given the default implementation there is no way for this to happen aside from abort() being called, but in some implementations it is possible to implement a fault catcher which allows a test suite to recover from an unexpected failure. Maybe it would be best to drop this until I add one of those alternative implementations. > Either way, having a spinlock around a read/write API doesn't make sense > because it just makes sure that two writes don't overlap, but otherwise > does nothing to keep things synchronized. For example a set to true > after a set to false when the two calls to set true or false aren't > synchronized means they can happen in any order. So I don't see how it > needs a spinlock. The lock needs to be one level higher. There shouldn't be any cases where one thread is trying to set it while another is trying to unset it. The thing I am worried about here is making sure all the cores see the write, and making sure no reads or writes get reordered before it. So I guess I just want a fence. So I take it I should probably have is a WRITE_ONCE here and READ_ONCE in the getter? > > > > > > + > > > > void kunit_init_test(struct kunit *test, const char *name); > > > > > > > > int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite); > > > > diff --git a/include/kunit/try-catch.h b/include/kunit/try-catch.h > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > index 0000000000000..8a414a9af0b64 > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > +++ b/include/kunit/try-catch.h > [...] > > > > + > > > > +/* > > > > + * struct kunit_try_catch - provides a generic way to run code which might fail. > > > > + * @context: used to pass user data to the try and catch functions. > > > > + * > > > > + * kunit_try_catch provides a generic, architecture independent way to execute > > > > + * an arbitrary function of type kunit_try_catch_func_t which may bail out by > > > > + * calling kunit_try_catch_throw(). If kunit_try_catch_throw() is called, @try > > > > + * is stopped at the site of invocation and @catch is catch is called. > > > > + * > > > > + * struct kunit_try_catch provides a generic interface for the functionality > > > > + * needed to implement kunit->abort() which in turn is needed for implementing > > > > + * assertions. Assertions allow stating a precondition for a test simplifying > > > > + * how test cases are written and presented. > > > > + * > > > > + * Assertions are like expectations, except they abort (call > > > > + * kunit_try_catch_throw()) when the specified condition is not met. This is > > > > + * useful when you look at a test case as a logical statement about some piece > > > > + * of code, where assertions are the premises for the test case, and the > > > > + * conclusion is a set of predicates, rather expectations, that must all be > > > > + * true. If your premises are violated, it does not makes sense to continue. > > > > + */ > > > > +struct kunit_try_catch { > > > > + /* private: internal use only. */ > > > > + struct kunit *test; > > > > + struct completion *try_completion; > > > > + int try_result; > > > > + kunit_try_catch_func_t try; > > > > + kunit_try_catch_func_t catch; > > > > > > Can these other variables be documented in the kernel doc? And should > > > context be marked as 'public'? > > > > Sure, I can document them. > > > > But I don't think context should be public; it should only be accessed > > by kunit_try_catch_* functions. context should only be populated by > > *_init, and will be passed into *try and *catch when they are called > > internally. > > Ok. Then I guess just document them all but keep them all marked as > private. Will do. > > > > > > + */ > > > > +void kunit_generic_try_catch_init(struct kunit_try_catch *try_catch); > > > > + > > > > +#endif /* _KUNIT_TRY_CATCH_H */ > > > > diff --git a/kunit/test.c b/kunit/test.c > > > > index e5080a2c6b29c..995cb53fe4ee9 100644 > > > > --- a/kunit/test.c > > > > +++ b/kunit/test.c > > > > @@ -158,6 +171,21 @@ static void kunit_fail(struct kunit *test, struct kunit_assert *assert) > > > > kunit_print_string_stream(test, stream); > > > > } > > > > > > > > +void __noreturn kunit_abort(struct kunit *test) > > > > +{ > > > > + kunit_set_death_test(test, true); > > > > + > > > > + kunit_try_catch_throw(&test->try_catch); > > > > + > > > > + /* > > > > + * Throw could not abort from test. > > > > + * > > > > + * XXX: we should never reach this line! As kunit_try_catch_throw is > > > > + * marked __noreturn. > > > > + */ > > > > + WARN_ONCE(true, "Throw could not abort from test!\n"); > > > > > > Should this just be a BUG_ON? It's supposedly impossible. > > > > It should be impossible; it will only reach this line if there is a > > bug in kunit_try_catch_throw. The reason I didn't use BUG_ON was > > because I previously got yelled at for having BUG_ON in this code > > path. > > > > Nevertheless, I think BUG_ON is more correct, so if you will stand by > > it, then that's what I will do. > > Yeah BUG_ON is appropriate here and self documenting so please use it. Cool, will do. > > > > > > + return; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + if (kunit_get_death_test(test)) { > > > > + /* > > > > + * EXPECTED DEATH: kunit_run_case_internal encountered > > > > + * anticipated fatal error. Everything should be in a safe > > > > + * state. > > > > + */ > > > > + kunit_run_case_cleanup(test, suite); > > > > + } else { > > > > + /* > > > > + * UNEXPECTED DEATH: kunit_run_case_internal encountered an > > > > + * unanticipated fatal error. We have no idea what the state of > > > > + * the test case is in. > > > > + */ > > > > + kunit_handle_test_crash(test, suite, test_case); > > > > + kunit_set_failure(test); > > > > > > Like was done here. > > > > Sorry, like what? > > Just saying this has braces for the if-else. Ah, gotcha.
Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-08-13 00:52:03) > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 10:56 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-08-12 21:57:55) > > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 9:22 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-08-12 11:24:12) > > > > > diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h > > > > > index 2625bcfeb19ac..93381f841e09f 100644 > > > > > --- a/include/kunit/test.h > > > > > +++ b/include/kunit/test.h > > > > > @@ -184,6 +191,13 @@ struct kunit { > > > > > struct list_head resources; /* Protected by lock. */ > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > > > +static inline void kunit_set_death_test(struct kunit *test, bool death_test) > > > > > +{ > > > > > + spin_lock(&test->lock); > > > > > + test->death_test = death_test; > > > > > + spin_unlock(&test->lock); > > > > > +} > > > > > > > > These getters and setters are using spinlocks again. It doesn't make any > > > > sense. It probably needs a rework like was done for the other bool > > > > member, success. > > > > > > No, this is intentional. death_test can transition from false to true > > > and then back to false within the same test. Maybe that deserves a > > > comment? > > > > Yes. How does it transition from true to false again? > > The purpose is to tell try_catch that it was expected for the test to > bail out. Given the default implementation there is no way for this to > happen aside from abort() being called, but in some implementations it > is possible to implement a fault catcher which allows a test suite to > recover from an unexpected failure. > > Maybe it would be best to drop this until I add one of those > alternative implementations. Ok. > > > Either way, having a spinlock around a read/write API doesn't make sense > > because it just makes sure that two writes don't overlap, but otherwise > > does nothing to keep things synchronized. For example a set to true > > after a set to false when the two calls to set true or false aren't > > synchronized means they can happen in any order. So I don't see how it > > needs a spinlock. The lock needs to be one level higher. > > There shouldn't be any cases where one thread is trying to set it > while another is trying to unset it. The thing I am worried about here > is making sure all the cores see the write, and making sure no reads > or writes get reordered before it. So I guess I just want a fence. So > I take it I should probably have is a WRITE_ONCE here and READ_ONCE in > the getter? > Are the gets and sets in program order? If so, WRITE_ONCE and READ_ONCE aren't required. Otherwise, if it's possible for one thread to write it and another to read it but the threads are ordered with some other barrier like a completion or lock, then again the macros aren't needed. It would be good to read memory-barriers.txt to understand when to use the read/write macros.
diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h index 2625bcfeb19ac..93381f841e09f 100644 --- a/include/kunit/test.h +++ b/include/kunit/test.h @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ #include <linux/types.h> #include <linux/slab.h> #include <kunit/assert.h> +#include <kunit/try-catch.h> struct kunit_resource; @@ -167,6 +168,7 @@ struct kunit { /* private: internal use only. */ const char *name; /* Read only after initialization! */ + struct kunit_try_catch try_catch; /* * success starts as true, and may only be set to false during a test * case; thus, it is safe to update this across multiple threads using @@ -176,6 +178,11 @@ struct kunit { */ bool success; /* Read only after test_case finishes! */ spinlock_t lock; /* Gaurds all mutable test state. */ + /* + * death_test may be both set and unset from multiple threads in a test + * case. + */ + bool death_test; /* Protected by lock. */ /* * Because resources is a list that may be updated multiple times (with * new resources) from any thread associated with a test case, we must @@ -184,6 +191,13 @@ struct kunit { struct list_head resources; /* Protected by lock. */ }; +static inline void kunit_set_death_test(struct kunit *test, bool death_test) +{ + spin_lock(&test->lock); + test->death_test = death_test; + spin_unlock(&test->lock); +} + void kunit_init_test(struct kunit *test, const char *name); int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite); diff --git a/include/kunit/try-catch.h b/include/kunit/try-catch.h new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000..8a414a9af0b64 --- /dev/null +++ b/include/kunit/try-catch.h @@ -0,0 +1,69 @@ +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */ +/* + * An API to allow a function, that may fail, to be executed, and recover in a + * controlled manner. + * + * Copyright (C) 2019, Google LLC. + * Author: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com> + */ + +#ifndef _KUNIT_TRY_CATCH_H +#define _KUNIT_TRY_CATCH_H + +#include <linux/types.h> + +typedef void (*kunit_try_catch_func_t)(void *); + +struct kunit; + +/* + * struct kunit_try_catch - provides a generic way to run code which might fail. + * @context: used to pass user data to the try and catch functions. + * + * kunit_try_catch provides a generic, architecture independent way to execute + * an arbitrary function of type kunit_try_catch_func_t which may bail out by + * calling kunit_try_catch_throw(). If kunit_try_catch_throw() is called, @try + * is stopped at the site of invocation and @catch is catch is called. + * + * struct kunit_try_catch provides a generic interface for the functionality + * needed to implement kunit->abort() which in turn is needed for implementing + * assertions. Assertions allow stating a precondition for a test simplifying + * how test cases are written and presented. + * + * Assertions are like expectations, except they abort (call + * kunit_try_catch_throw()) when the specified condition is not met. This is + * useful when you look at a test case as a logical statement about some piece + * of code, where assertions are the premises for the test case, and the + * conclusion is a set of predicates, rather expectations, that must all be + * true. If your premises are violated, it does not makes sense to continue. + */ +struct kunit_try_catch { + /* private: internal use only. */ + struct kunit *test; + struct completion *try_completion; + int try_result; + kunit_try_catch_func_t try; + kunit_try_catch_func_t catch; + void *context; +}; + +void kunit_try_catch_init(struct kunit_try_catch *try_catch, + struct kunit *test, + kunit_try_catch_func_t try, + kunit_try_catch_func_t catch); + +void kunit_try_catch_run(struct kunit_try_catch *try_catch, void *context); + +void __noreturn kunit_try_catch_throw(struct kunit_try_catch *try_catch); + +static inline int kunit_try_catch_get_result(struct kunit_try_catch *try_catch) +{ + return try_catch->try_result; +} + +/* + * Exposed for testing only. + */ +void kunit_generic_try_catch_init(struct kunit_try_catch *try_catch); + +#endif /* _KUNIT_TRY_CATCH_H */ diff --git a/kunit/Makefile b/kunit/Makefile index 4e46450bcb3a8..c9176c9c578c6 100644 --- a/kunit/Makefile +++ b/kunit/Makefile @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_KUNIT) += test.o \ string-stream.o \ - assert.o + assert.o \ + try-catch.o obj-$(CONFIG_KUNIT_TEST) += string-stream-test.o diff --git a/kunit/test.c b/kunit/test.c index e5080a2c6b29c..995cb53fe4ee9 100644 --- a/kunit/test.c +++ b/kunit/test.c @@ -7,13 +7,26 @@ */ #include <linux/kernel.h> +#include <linux/sched/debug.h> #include <kunit/test.h> +#include <kunit/try-catch.h> static void kunit_set_failure(struct kunit *test) { WRITE_ONCE(test->success, false); } +static bool kunit_get_death_test(struct kunit *test) +{ + bool death_test; + + spin_lock(&test->lock); + death_test = test->death_test; + spin_unlock(&test->lock); + + return death_test; +} + static int kunit_vprintk_emit(int level, const char *fmt, va_list args) { return vprintk_emit(0, level, NULL, 0, fmt, args); @@ -158,6 +171,21 @@ static void kunit_fail(struct kunit *test, struct kunit_assert *assert) kunit_print_string_stream(test, stream); } +void __noreturn kunit_abort(struct kunit *test) +{ + kunit_set_death_test(test, true); + + kunit_try_catch_throw(&test->try_catch); + + /* + * Throw could not abort from test. + * + * XXX: we should never reach this line! As kunit_try_catch_throw is + * marked __noreturn. + */ + WARN_ONCE(true, "Throw could not abort from test!\n"); +} + void kunit_do_assertion(struct kunit *test, struct kunit_assert *assert, bool pass, @@ -176,6 +204,9 @@ void kunit_do_assertion(struct kunit *test, kunit_fail(test, assert); va_end(args); + + if (assert->type == KUNIT_ASSERTION) + kunit_abort(test); } void kunit_init_test(struct kunit *test, const char *name) @@ -184,36 +215,154 @@ void kunit_init_test(struct kunit *test, const char *name) INIT_LIST_HEAD(&test->resources); test->name = name; test->success = true; + test->death_test = false; } /* - * Performs all logic to run a test case. + * Initializes and runs test case. Does not clean up or do post validations. */ -static void kunit_run_case(struct kunit_suite *suite, - struct kunit_case *test_case) +static void kunit_run_case_internal(struct kunit *test, + struct kunit_suite *suite, + struct kunit_case *test_case) { - struct kunit test; - - kunit_init_test(&test, test_case->name); - if (suite->init) { int ret; - ret = suite->init(&test); + ret = suite->init(test); if (ret) { - kunit_err(&test, "failed to initialize: %d\n", ret); - kunit_set_failure(&test); - test_case->success = test.success; + kunit_err(test, "failed to initialize: %d\n", ret); + kunit_set_failure(test); return; } } - test_case->run_case(&test); + test_case->run_case(test); +} + +static void kunit_case_internal_cleanup(struct kunit *test) +{ + kunit_cleanup(test); +} +/* + * Performs post validations and cleanup after a test case was run. + * XXX: Should ONLY BE CALLED AFTER kunit_run_case_internal! + */ +static void kunit_run_case_cleanup(struct kunit *test, + struct kunit_suite *suite) +{ if (suite->exit) - suite->exit(&test); + suite->exit(test); + + kunit_case_internal_cleanup(test); +} + +/* + * Handles an unexpected crash in a test case. + */ +static void kunit_handle_test_crash(struct kunit *test, + struct kunit_suite *suite, + struct kunit_case *test_case) +{ + kunit_err(test, "kunit test case crashed!"); + /* + * TODO(brendanhiggins@google.com): This prints the stack trace up + * through this frame, not up to the frame that caused the crash. + */ + show_stack(NULL, NULL); + + kunit_case_internal_cleanup(test); +} + +struct kunit_try_catch_context { + struct kunit *test; + struct kunit_suite *suite; + struct kunit_case *test_case; +}; + +static void kunit_try_run_case(void *data) +{ + struct kunit_try_catch_context *ctx = data; + struct kunit *test = ctx->test; + struct kunit_suite *suite = ctx->suite; + struct kunit_case *test_case = ctx->test_case; + + /* + * kunit_run_case_internal may encounter a fatal error; if it does, + * abort will be called, this thread will exit, and finally the parent + * thread will resume control and handle any necessary clean up. + */ + kunit_run_case_internal(test, suite, test_case); + /* This line may never be reached. */ + kunit_run_case_cleanup(test, suite); +} + +static void kunit_catch_run_case(void *data) +{ + struct kunit_try_catch_context *ctx = data; + struct kunit *test = ctx->test; + struct kunit_suite *suite = ctx->suite; + struct kunit_case *test_case = ctx->test_case; + int try_exit_code = kunit_try_catch_get_result(&test->try_catch); + + if (try_exit_code) { + kunit_set_failure(test); + /* + * Test case could not finish, we have no idea what state it is + * in, so don't do clean up. + */ + if (try_exit_code == -ETIMEDOUT) + kunit_err(test, "test case timed out\n"); + /* + * Unknown internal error occurred preventing test case from + * running, so there is nothing to clean up. + */ + else + kunit_err(test, "internal error occurred preventing test case from running: %d\n", + try_exit_code); + return; + } + + if (kunit_get_death_test(test)) { + /* + * EXPECTED DEATH: kunit_run_case_internal encountered + * anticipated fatal error. Everything should be in a safe + * state. + */ + kunit_run_case_cleanup(test, suite); + } else { + /* + * UNEXPECTED DEATH: kunit_run_case_internal encountered an + * unanticipated fatal error. We have no idea what the state of + * the test case is in. + */ + kunit_handle_test_crash(test, suite, test_case); + kunit_set_failure(test); + } +} + +/* + * Performs all logic to run a test case. It also catches most errors that + * occurs in a test case and reports them as failures. + */ +static void kunit_run_case_catch_errors(struct kunit_suite *suite, + struct kunit_case *test_case) +{ + struct kunit_try_catch_context context; + struct kunit_try_catch *try_catch; + struct kunit test; + + kunit_init_test(&test, test_case->name); + try_catch = &test.try_catch; - kunit_cleanup(&test); + kunit_try_catch_init(try_catch, + &test, + kunit_try_run_case, + kunit_catch_run_case); + context.test = &test; + context.suite = suite; + context.test_case = test_case; + kunit_try_catch_run(try_catch, &context); test_case->success = test.success; } @@ -226,7 +375,7 @@ int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite) kunit_print_subtest_start(suite); for (test_case = suite->test_cases; test_case->run_case; test_case++) { - kunit_run_case(suite, test_case); + kunit_run_case_catch_errors(suite, test_case); kunit_print_test_case_ok_not_ok(test_case, test_case_count++); } diff --git a/kunit/try-catch.c b/kunit/try-catch.c new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000..de580f074387b --- /dev/null +++ b/kunit/try-catch.c @@ -0,0 +1,95 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 +/* + * An API to allow a function, that may fail, to be executed, and recover in a + * controlled manner. + * + * Copyright (C) 2019, Google LLC. + * Author: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com> + */ + +#include <kunit/try-catch.h> +#include <kunit/test.h> +#include <linux/completion.h> +#include <linux/kthread.h> + +void __noreturn kunit_try_catch_throw(struct kunit_try_catch *try_catch) +{ + try_catch->try_result = -EFAULT; + complete_and_exit(try_catch->try_completion, -EFAULT); +} + +static int kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter(void *data) +{ + struct kunit_try_catch *try_catch = data; + + try_catch->try(try_catch->context); + + complete_and_exit(try_catch->try_completion, 0); +} + +void kunit_try_catch_run(struct kunit_try_catch *try_catch, void *context) +{ + DECLARE_COMPLETION_ONSTACK(try_completion); + struct kunit *test = try_catch->test; + struct task_struct *task_struct; + int exit_code, status; + + try_catch->context = context; + try_catch->try_completion = &try_completion; + try_catch->try_result = 0; + task_struct = kthread_run(kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter, + try_catch, + "kunit_try_catch_thread"); + if (IS_ERR(task_struct)) { + try_catch->catch(try_catch->context); + return; + } + + /* + * TODO(brendanhiggins@google.com): We should probably have some type of + * variable timeout here. The only question is what that timeout value + * should be. + * + * The intention has always been, at some point, to be able to label + * tests with some type of size bucket (unit/small, integration/medium, + * large/system/end-to-end, etc), where each size bucket would get a + * default timeout value kind of like what Bazel does: + * https://docs.bazel.build/versions/master/be/common-definitions.html#test.size + * There is still some debate to be had on exactly how we do this. (For + * one, we probably want to have some sort of test runner level + * timeout.) + * + * For more background on this topic, see: + * https://mike-bland.com/2011/11/01/small-medium-large.html + */ + status = wait_for_completion_timeout(&try_completion, + 300 * MSEC_PER_SEC); /* 5 min */ + if (status < 0) { + kunit_err(test, "try timed out\n"); + try_catch->try_result = -ETIMEDOUT; + } + + exit_code = try_catch->try_result; + + if (!exit_code) + return; + + if (exit_code == -EFAULT) + try_catch->try_result = 0; + else if (exit_code == -EINTR) + kunit_err(test, "wake_up_process() was never called\n"); + else if (exit_code) + kunit_err(test, "Unknown error: %d\n", exit_code); + + try_catch->catch(try_catch->context); +} + +void kunit_try_catch_init(struct kunit_try_catch *try_catch, + struct kunit *test, + kunit_try_catch_func_t try, + kunit_try_catch_func_t catch) +{ + try_catch->test = test; + try_catch->try = try; + try_catch->catch = catch; +}