On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 1:34 AM David Gow davidgow@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 12:49 AM Joe Fradley joefradley@google.com wrote:
Because KUnit test execution is not a guarantee with the kunit.enable parameter we want to be careful to only taint the kernel only if an actual test runs. Calling module_info(test, "Y") for every KUnit module automatically causes the kernel to be tainted upon module load. Therefore, we're removing this call and relying on the KUnit framework to taint the kernel or not.
Signed-off-by: Joe Fradley joefradley@google.com
Thanks!
This definitely fixes an assumption I'd had about KUnit-usage which definitely doesn't hold: that all KUnit tests would be in their own modules (or at least that those modules wouldn't need to be loaded on otherwise production systems). Given this isn't the case for a number of modules (thuderbolt, apparmor, probably soon amdgpu), it makles sense to get rid of this and only taint the kernel when the test is actually run, not just when it's loaded.
This could be considered a fix for c272612cb4a2 ("kunit: Taint the kernel when KUnit tests are run"), as it'd already be possible to load, e.g., thunderbolt, but prevent the tests from executing with a filter glob which doesn't match any tests. That possibly shouldn't taint the kernel.
Great, thank you for the review.
Reviewed-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com Fixes: c272612cb4a2 ("kunit: Taint the kernel when KUnit tests are run")
Cheers, -- David
include/kunit/test.h | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h index c958855681cc..f23d3954aa17 100644 --- a/include/kunit/test.h +++ b/include/kunit/test.h @@ -251,7 +251,6 @@ static inline int kunit_run_all_tests(void) #endif /* IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_KUNIT) */
#define __kunit_test_suites(unique_array, ...) \
MODULE_INFO(test, "Y"); \ static struct kunit_suite *unique_array[] \ __aligned(sizeof(struct kunit_suite *)) \ __used __section(".kunit_test_suites") = { __VA_ARGS__ }-- 2.37.1.595.g718a3a8f04-goog