lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Apr]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    SubjectRe: [PATCH net-next v6 09/11] seccomp: Enhance test_harness with an assert step mechanism
    On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> wrote:
    >
    > On 19/04/2017 02:02, Kees Cook wrote:
    >> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> wrote:
    >>> This is useful to return an information about the error without being
    >>> able to write to TH_LOG_STREAM.
    >>>
    >>> Helpers from test_harness.h may be useful outside of the seccomp
    >>> directory.
    >>>
    >>> Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net>
    >>> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
    >>> Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
    >>> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
    >>> Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>
    >>> Cc: Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>
    >>> ---
    >>> tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/test_harness.h | 8 +++++++-
    >>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
    >>>
    >>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/test_harness.h b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/test_harness.h
    >>> index a786c69c7584..77e407663e06 100644
    >>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/test_harness.h
    >>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/test_harness.h
    >>> @@ -397,7 +397,7 @@ struct __test_metadata {
    >>> const char *name;
    >>> void (*fn)(struct __test_metadata *);
    >>> int termsig;
    >>> - int passed;
    >>> + __s8 passed;
    >>
    >> Why the reduction here? int is signed too?
    >
    > Because the return code of a process is capped to 8 bits and I use a
    > negative value to not mess with the current interpretation of 0 (error)
    > and 1 (OK) for the "passed" variable.
    >
    >>
    >>> int trigger; /* extra handler after the evaluation */
    >>> struct __test_metadata *prev, *next;
    >>> };
    >>> @@ -476,6 +476,12 @@ void __run_test(struct __test_metadata *t)
    >>> "instead of by signal (code: %d)\n",
    >>> t->name,
    >>> WEXITSTATUS(status));
    >>> + } else if (t->passed < 0) {
    >>> + fprintf(TH_LOG_STREAM,
    >>> + "%s: Failed at step #%d\n",
    >>> + t->name,
    >>> + t->passed * -1);
    >>> + t->passed = 0;
    >>> }
    >>
    >> Instead of creating an overloaded mechanism here, perhaps have an
    >> option reporting mechanism that can be enabled. Like adding to
    >> __test_metadata "bool no_stream; int test_number;" and adding
    >> test_number++ to each ASSERT/EXCEPT call, and doing something like:
    >>
    >> if (t->no_stream) {
    >> fprintf(TH_LOG_STREAM,
    >> "%s: Failed at step #%d\n",
    >> t->name,
    >> t->test_number);
    >> }
    >>
    >> It'd be a cleaner approach, maybe?
    >
    > Good idea, we will then be able to use 255 steps!
    >
    > Do you want me to send this as a separate patch?
    >
    > Can we move test_harness.h outside of the seccomp directory to be
    > available to other subsystems as well?

    Yeah, I would do two patches, and send them out separately (to shuah
    with lkml and me in cc at least), one to move test_hardness.h into
    some include/ directory, and then to add the new logic for streamless
    reporting.

    Thanks!

    -Kees


    --
    Kees Cook
    Pixel Security

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2017-04-20 00:03    [W:6.493 / U:0.676 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site