Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 9 Aug 2023 13:14:06 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] kunit: kunit-test: Add test cases for extending log buffer | From | Richard Fitzgerald <> |
| |
On 9/8/23 13:11, David Gow wrote: > On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 at 17:39, Richard Fitzgerald > <rf@opensource.cirrus.com> wrote: >> >> On 8/8/23 22:16, Rae Moar wrote: >>> On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 8:35 AM Richard Fitzgerald >>> <rf@opensource.cirrus.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Add test cases for the dynamically-extending log buffer. >>>> >>>> kunit_log_extend_test_1() logs a series of numbered lines then tests >>>> that the resulting log contains all the lines. >>>> >>>> kunit_log_extend_test_2() logs a large number of lines of varying length >>>> to create many fragments, then tests that all lines are present. >>>> >>>> kunit_log_frag_sized_line_test() logs a line that exactly fills a >>>> fragment. This should not cause an extension of the log or truncation >>>> of the line. >>>> >>>> kunit_log_newline_test() has a new test to append a line that is exactly >>>> the length of the available space in the current fragment and check that >>>> the resulting log has a trailing '\n'. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Richard Fitzgerald <rf@opensource.cirrus.com> >>> >>> Hello! >>> >>> I am happy to see so many tests in this patch series. I've been >>> working with these patches and the debugfs logs seem to be working >>> well. >>> >>> However, when I ran the new kunit-log-test tests three of the tests >>> failed: kunit_log_extend_test_1(), kunit_log_extend_test_2(), and >>> kunit_log_newline_test(). >>> >>> The diagnostic info for kunit_log_extend_test_1() reports: >>> >>> [20:55:27] # kunit_log_extend_test_1: EXPECTATION FAILED at >>> lib/kunit/kunit-test.c:705 >>> [20:55:27] Expected p == line, but >>> [20:55:27] p == "xxxxxx…xxxx12345678" >>> [20:55:27] line == "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy penguin 0" >>> … >>> [20:55:27] # kunit_log_extend_test_1: EXPECTATION FAILED at >>> lib/kunit/kunit-test.c:705 >>> [20:55:27] Expected p == line, but >>> [20:55:27] p == "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy penguin 1" >>> [20:55:27] line == "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy penguin 4" >>> [20:55:27] # kunit_log_extend_test_1: EXPECTATION FAILED at >>> lib/kunit/kunit-test.c:705 >>> [20:55:27] Expected p == line, but >>> [20:55:27] p == "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy penguin 2" >>> [20:55:27] line == "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy penguin 5" >>> … >>> [20:55:27] # kunit_log_extend_test_1: EXPECTATION FAILED at >>> lib/kunit/kunit-test.c:709 >>> [20:55:27] Expected i == num_lines, but >>> [20:55:27] i == 64 (0x40) >>> [20:55:27] num_lines == 141 (0x8d) >>> >>> So it looks like the log contains a different number of lines than >>> expected which is causing the difference of 3 between expected and >>> what was obtained. Potentially the log is not getting cleared/freed >>> properly in between test cases? >>> >>> The diagnostic info for kunit_log_extend_test_2() reports: >>> >>> [20:55:27] # kunit_log_extend_test_2: EXPECTATION FAILED at >>> lib/kunit/kunit-test.c:776 >>> [20:55:27] Expected p == &line[i], but >>> [20:55:27] p == >>> "xxxxx...xxxxx123456780123456789abcdef101112131415161718191a1b1c1d1e1f202122232425262728292a2b2c2d2e2f30313233343536373839" >>> [20:55:27] &line[i] == >>> "0123456789abcdef101112131415161718191a1b1c1d1e1f202122232425262728292a2b2c2d2e2f30313233343536373839" >>> [20:55:27] # kunit_log_extend_test_2: EXPECTATION FAILED at >>> lib/kunit/kunit-test.c:781 >>> [20:55:27] Expected n == num_lines, but >>> [20:55:27] n == 147 (0x93) >>> [20:55:27] num_lines == 155 (0x9b) >>> [20:55:27] Not enough lines. >>> >>> Similar difference in the number of lines here. >>> >>> The diagnostic info for kunit_log_newline_test() reports that the test >>> fails on this line: >>> >>> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, p[strlen(p) - 1], '\n'); >>> >>> Let me know if you are seeing similar errors. I can post the full log >>> if that would be helpful. >>> >>> -Rae >>> >> >> Ah, I see a bug in get_concatenated_log(). >> Does this change fix it for you? >> >> len++; /* for terminating '\0' */ >> - p = kunit_kmalloc(test, len, GFP_KERNEL); >> + p = kunit_kzalloc(test, len, GFP_KERNEL); > > This fixes what seems to be the same issue for me, under x86_64/qemu. > > Thanks, > -- David
Good. It seems that the various memory security options have the side-effect of covering up this bug. I don't know which one exactly (I've just turned them all off). I had been testing with them on.
I'll send a V3.
| |