On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 1:25 AM 'Tzung-Bi Shih' via KUnit Development kunit-dev@googlegroups.com wrote:
The protocol device drivers under drivers/platform/chrome/ are responsible to communicate to the ChromeOS EC (Embedded Controller). They need to pack the data in a pre-defined format and check if the EC responds accordingly.
The series adds some fundamental unit tests for the protocol. It calls the .cmd_xfer() and .pkt_xfer() callbacks (which are the most crucial parts for the protocol), mocks the rest of the system, and checks if the interactions are all correct.
The series isn't ready for landing. It's more like a PoC for the binary-level function redirection and its use cases.
The 1st patch adds ftrace stub which is originally from [1][2]. There is no follow-up discussion about the ftrace stub. As a result, the patch is still on the mailing list.
The 2nd patch adds Kunit tests for cros_ec_i2c. It relies on the ftrace stub for redirecting cros_ec_{un,}register().
The 3rd patch uses static stub instead (if ftrace stub isn't really an option). However, I'm not a big fan to change the production code (i.e. adding the prologue in cros_ec_{un,}register()) for testing.
The 4th patch adds Kunit tests for cros_ec_spi. It relies on the ftrace stub for redirecting cros_ec_{un,}register() again.
The 5th patch calls .probe() directly instead of forcing the driver probe needs to be synchronous. In comparison with the 4th patch, I don't think this is simpler. I'd prefer to the way in the 4th patch.
After talked to Masami about the work, he suggested to use Kprobes for function redirection. The 6th patch adds kprobes stub.
The 7th patch uses kprobes stub instead for cros_ec_spi.
Questions:
Are we going to support ftrace stub so that tests can use it?
If ftrace stub isn't on the plate (e.g. due to too many dependencies), how about the kprobes stub? Is it something we could pursue?
Quick comment, If I recall, the thought process was that we could consider it in the future if there was enough demand for it.
We have these drawbacks with the current ftrace stubs: * doesn't compile on all arches * silently doesn't work on inlined functions <== scariest one to me * is more complicated and has more dependencies
So it felt like the better move to go with static stubs which has none of those drawbacks (works on all arches, all functions, and is dead simple) as opposed to simultaneously introducing two ways to do the same thing.
You mention you don't like how static stubs requires modifying the code-under-test. Since it gets eliminated by the preprocessor unless you're compiling for KUnit, is the concern more so about how it conceptually feels wrong to do so? For the Android GKI kernel, they have (or had) KUnit enabled so there is potentially concern about real runtime cost there, not sure if you have something similar in mind.
But stepping back, ftrace_stubs technically require modifying the code to make sure funcs are marked as `noinline`, which this patch series does not do. I've not looked at cros_ec_{un,}register() to check if they're at risk of inlining, but wanted to call that out, that ftrace stubs technically don't handle your usage pattern 100% properly.
- (minor) I'm unsure if people would prefer 'kprobes stub' vs. 'kprobe stub'.
I'd personally vote for kprobe_stub.
Daniel