Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] test_hash.c: refactor into kunit

Hi, David,

On Sat, Oct 2, 2021 at 4:22 AM David Gow davidgow@google.com wrote:

On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 6:33 AM Isabella Basso isabellabdoamaral@usp.br wrote:

...

Use KUnit framework to make tests more easily integrable with CIs. Even though these tests are not yet properly written as unit tests this change should help in debugging.

Also remove kernel messages (i.e. through pr_info) as KUnit handles all debugging output and let it handle module init and exit details.

Changes since v1:

• As suggested by David Gow:
  1. Keep module support.
  2. Reword commit message.
• As reported by the kernel test bot:
  1. Fix compilation for m68k and parisc architectures.

It might be worth moving the changelog under the "---" here, so that it's not a part of the final commit message.

...

Reported-by: kernel test robot lkp@intel.com Tested-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com Co-developed-by: Augusto Durães Camargo augusto.duraes33@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Augusto Durães Camargo augusto.duraes33@gmail.com Co-developed-by: Enzo Ferreira ferreiraenzoa@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Enzo Ferreira ferreiraenzoa@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Isabella Basso isabellabdoamaral@usp.br

---

I went through this in a little more detail, and I'm happy with it. It'd still be nice if someone with more knowledge of the hashing code looked over it, but since George's email bounced, I'm happy to give this my reviewed-by.

There are a few minor comments below (and above, I guess), which would be worth doing as part of a v3.

Reviewed-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com

Thanks, -- David

...

lib/Kconfig.debug | 28 ++++--- lib/Makefile | 2 +- lib/test_hash.c | 187 ++++++++++++++-------------------------------- 3 files changed, 78 insertions(+), 139 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug index eb6c4daf5fcb..04eec87c2964 100644 --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug @@ -2204,15 +2204,6 @@ config TEST_RHASHTABLE

      If unsure, say N.

-config TEST_HASH

•   tristate "Perform selftest on hash functions"
  

•   help
  

•     Enable this option to test the kernel's integer (<linux/hash.h>), and
  

•     string (<linux/stringhash.h>) hash functions on boot (or module load).
  

•     This is intended to help people writing architecture-specific
  

•     optimized versions.  If unsure, say N.
  

config TEST_SIPHASH tristate "Perform selftest on siphash functions" help @@ -2361,6 +2352,25 @@ config BITFIELD_KUNIT

      If unsure, say N.

+config HASH_KUNIT_TEST

•   tristate "KUnit Test for integer hash functions" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
  

•   depends on KUNIT
  

•   default KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
  

•   help
  

•     Enable this option to test the kernel's string (<linux/stringhash.h>), and
  

•     integer (<linux/hash.h>) hash functions on boot.
  

•     KUnit tests run during boot and output the results to the debug log
  

•     in TAP format (https://testanything.org/). Only useful for kernel devs
  

•     running the KUnit test harness, and not intended for inclusion into a
  

•     production build.
  

•     For more information on KUnit and unit tests in general please refer
  

•     to the KUnit documentation in Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/.
  

•     This is intended to help people writing architecture-specific
  

•     optimized versions. If unsure, say N.
  

config RESOURCE_KUNIT_TEST tristate "KUnit test for resource API" depends on KUNIT diff --git a/lib/Makefile b/lib/Makefile index c2e81d0eb31c..0bc336d9d036 100644 --- a/lib/Makefile +++ b/lib/Makefile @@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_BITOPS) += test_bitops.o CFLAGS_test_bitops.o += -Werror obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_SYSCTL) += test_sysctl.o obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_SIPHASH) += test_siphash.o -obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_HASH) += test_hash.o +obj-$(CONFIG_HASH_KUNIT_TEST) += test_hash.o obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_IDA) += test_ida.o obj-$(CONFIG_KASAN_KUNIT_TEST) += test_kasan.o CFLAGS_test_kasan.o += -fno-builtin diff --git a/lib/test_hash.c b/lib/test_hash.c index db9dd18b4e8b..9cb8b1d2ab06 100644 --- a/lib/test_hash.c +++ b/lib/test_hash.c @@ -14,14 +14,12 @@

• and hash_64().

*/

-#define pr_fmt(fmt) KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt "\n"

#include <linux/compiler.h> #include <linux/types.h> #include <linux/module.h> #include <linux/hash.h> #include <linux/stringhash.h> -#include <linux/printk.h> +#include <kunit/test.h>

/* 32-bit XORSHIFT generator. Seed must not be zero. */ static u32 __init __attribute_const__ @@ -66,40 +64,32 @@ struct test_hash_params { };

#ifdef HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32 -static bool __init -test_int__hash_32(struct test_hash_params *params) +static void __init

Let's get rid of the __init bits here: it's possible KUnit tests will execute after kernel and/or module initialisation.

That makes sense! I thought those were necessary for some reason, my bad.

...

+test_int__hash_32(struct kunit *test, struct test_hash_params *params) { params->hash_or[1][0] |= params->h2 = __hash_32_generic(params->h0); #if HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32 == 1

•   if (params->h1 != params->h2) {
  

•           pr_err("__hash_32(%#x) = %#x != __hash_32_generic() = %#x",
  

•                  params->h0, params->h1, params->h2);
  

•           return false;
  

•   }
  

•   KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, params->h1, params->h2,
  

•                       "__hash_32(%#x) = %#x != __hash_32_generic() = %#x",
  

•                       params->h0, params->h1, params->h2);
  

#endif

•   return true;
  

} #endif

#ifdef HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64 -static bool __init -test_int_hash_64(struct test_hash_params *params, u32 const *m, int *k) +static void __init

Ditto for all other functions in this file: remove the __init.

...

+test_int_hash_64(struct kunit *test, struct test_hash_params *params, u32 const *m, int *k) { params->h2 = hash_64_generic(*params->h64, *k); #if HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64 == 1

•   if (params->h1 != params->h2) {
  

•           pr_err("hash_64(%#llx, %d) = %#x != hash_64_generic() = %#x",
  

•                  *params->h64, *k, params->h1, params->h2);
  

•           return false;
  

•   }
  

•   KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, params->h1, params->h2,
  

•                       "hash_64(%#llx, %d) = %#x != hash_64_generic() = %#x",
  

•                       *params->h64, *k, params->h1, params->h2);
  

#else

•   if (params->h2 > *m) {
  

•           pr_err("hash_64_generic(%#llx, %d) = %#x > %#x",
  

•                  *params->h64, *k, params->h1, *m);
  

•           return false;
  

•   }
  

•   KUNIT_EXPECT_LE_MSG(test, params->h1, params->h2,
  

•                       "hash_64_generic(%#llx, %d) = %#x > %#x",
  

•                       *params->h64, *k, params->h1, *m);
  

#endif

•   return true;
  

} #endif

@@ -112,8 +102,8 @@ test_int_hash_64(struct test_hash_params *params, u32 const *m, int *k)

• inline, the code being tested is actually in the module, and you can
• recompile and re-test the module without rebooting.

*/ -static bool __init -test_int_hash(unsigned long long h64, u32 hash_or[2][33]) +static void __init +test_int_hash(struct kunit *test, unsigned long long h64, u32 hash_or[2][33]) { int k; struct test_hash_params params = { &h64, (u32)h64, 0, 0, hash_or }; @@ -121,8 +111,7 @@ test_int_hash(unsigned long long h64, u32 hash_or[2][33]) /* Test __hash32 */ hash_or[0][0] |= params.h1 = __hash_32(params.h0); #ifdef HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32

•   if (!test_int__hash_32(&params))
  

•           return false;
  

•   test_int__hash_32(test, &params);
  

#endif

    /* Test k = 1..32 bits */

@@ -131,29 +120,24 @@ test_int_hash(unsigned long long h64, u32 hash_or[2][33])

            /* Test hash_32 */
            hash_or[0][k] |= params.h1 = hash_32(params.h0, k);

•           if (params.h1 > m) {
  

•                   pr_err("hash_32(%#x, %d) = %#x > %#x", params.h0, k, params.h1, m);
  

•                   return false;
  

•           }
  

•           KUNIT_EXPECT_LE_MSG(test, params.h1, m,
  

•                               "hash_32(%#x, %d) = %#x > %#x",
  

•                               params.h0, k, params.h1, m);
  
            /* Test hash_64 */
            hash_or[1][k] |= params.h1 = hash_64(h64, k);
  

•           if (params.h1 > m) {
  

•                   pr_err("hash_64(%#llx, %d) = %#x > %#x", h64, k, params.h1, m);
  

•                   return false;
  

•           }
  

•           KUNIT_EXPECT_LE_MSG(test, params.h1, m,
  

•                               "hash_64(%#llx, %d) = %#x > %#x",
  

•                               h64, k, params.h1, m);
  

#ifdef HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64

•           if (!test_int_hash_64(&params, &m, &k))
  

•                   return false;
  

•           test_int_hash_64(test, &params, &m, &k);
  

#endif }

•   return true;
  

}

#define SIZE 256 /* Run time is cubic in SIZE */

-static int __init test_string_or(void) +static void __init test_string_or(struct kunit *test) { char buf[SIZE+1]; u32 string_or = 0; @@ -173,20 +157,15 @@ static int __init test_string_or(void) } /* j */

    /* The OR of all the hash values should cover all the bits */

•   if (~string_or) {
  

•           pr_err("OR of all string hash results = %#x != %#x",
  

•                  string_or, -1u);
  

•           return -EINVAL;
  

•   }
  

•   return 0;
  

•   KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, ~string_or,
  

•                          "OR of all string hash results = %#x != %#x",
  

•                          string_or, -1u);
  

It might be worth using KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG() instead of EXPECT_FALSE(), as the real goal of this is to check if all bits are set.

This'd look something like: KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, string_or, -1u, "OR of all string hash results = %#x != %#x", string_or, -1u);

That makes a lot of sense to me. Thanks for the suggestion :)

If instead we checked if string_or == -1u, I think it'd be clearer and match the message better. (In fact, I think you could get away with removing the message and using the non-_MSG variants if you really wanted, though the extra text describing it as the OR of all string results is better.)

I like the text as well, as these tests are not really well separated I think it makes sense keeping them.

...

}

-static int __init test_hash_or(void) +static void __init test_hash_or(struct kunit *test) { char buf[SIZE+1]; u32 hash_or[2][33] = { { 0, } };

•   unsigned tests = 0;
    unsigned long long h64 = 0;
    int i, j;
  
  

@@ -201,39 +180,27 @@ static int __init test_hash_or(void) u32 h0 = full_name_hash(buf+i, buf+i, j-i);

                    /* Check that hashlen_string gets the length right */

•                   if (hashlen_len(hashlen) != j-i) {
  

•                           pr_err("hashlen_string(%d..%d) returned length"
  

•                                   " %u, expected %d",
  

•                                   i, j, hashlen_len(hashlen), j-i);
  

•                           return -EINVAL;
  

•                   }
  

•                   KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, hashlen_len(hashlen), j-i,
  

•                                       "hashlen_string(%d..%d) returned length %u, expected %d",
  

•                                       i, j, hashlen_len(hashlen), j-i);
                    /* Check that the hashes match */
  

•                   if (hashlen_hash(hashlen) != h0) {
  

•                           pr_err("hashlen_string(%d..%d) = %08x != "
  

•                                   "full_name_hash() = %08x",
  

•                                   i, j, hashlen_hash(hashlen), h0);
  

•                           return -EINVAL;
  

•                   }
  

•                   KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, hashlen_hash(hashlen), h0,
  

•                                       "hashlen_string(%d..%d) = %08x != full_name_hash() = %08x",
  

•                                       i, j, hashlen_hash(hashlen), h0);
  
                    h64 = h64 << 32 | h0;   /* For use with hash_64 */
  

•                   if (!test_int_hash(h64, hash_or))
  

•                           return -EINVAL;
  

•                   tests++;
  

•                   test_int_hash(test, h64, hash_or);
            } /* i */
    } /* j */
  
  

•   if (~hash_or[0][0]) {
  

•           pr_err("OR of all __hash_32 results = %#x != %#x",
  

•                   hash_or[0][0], -1u);
  

•           return -EINVAL;
  

•   }
  

•   KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, ~hash_or[0][0],
  

As above, maybe KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG() instead. (And ditto for all similar checks against ~hash_or[...])?

...

•                          "OR of all __hash_32 results = %#x != %#x",
  

•                          hash_or[0][0], -1u);
  

#ifdef HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32 #if HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32 != 1 /* Test is pointless if results match */

•   if (~hash_or[1][0]) {
  

•           pr_err("OR of all __hash_32_generic results = %#x != %#x",
  

•                   hash_or[1][0], -1u);
  

•           return -EINVAL;
  

•   }
  

•   KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, ~hash_or[1][0],
  

•                          "OR of all __hash_32_generic results = %#x != %#x",
  

•                          hash_or[1][0], -1u);
  

#endif #endif

@@ -241,65 +208,27 @@ static int __init test_hash_or(void) for (i = 1; i <= 32; i++) { u32 const m = ((u32)2 << (i-1)) - 1; /* Low i bits set */

•           if (hash_or[0][i] != m) {
  

•                   pr_err("OR of all hash_32(%d) results = %#x "
  

•                           "(%#x expected)", i, hash_or[0][i], m);
  

•                   return -EINVAL;
  

•           }
  

•           if (hash_or[1][i] != m) {
  

•                   pr_err("OR of all hash_64(%d) results = %#x "
  

•                           "(%#x expected)", i, hash_or[1][i], m);
  

•                   return -EINVAL;
  

•           }
  

•           KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, hash_or[0][i], m,
  

•                               "OR of all hash_32(%d) results = %#x (%#x expected)",
  

•                               i, hash_or[0][i], m);
  

•           KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, hash_or[1][i], m,
  

•                               "OR of all hash_64(%d) results = %#x (%#x expected)",
  

•                               i, hash_or[1][i], m);
    }
  

•   pr_notice("%u tests passed.", tests);
  

•   return 0;
  

-}

-static void __init notice_skipped_tests(void) -{

•   /* Issue notices about skipped tests. */
  

-#ifdef HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32 -#if HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32 != 1

•   pr_info("__hash_32() is arch-specific; not compared to generic.");
  

-#endif -#else

•   pr_info("__hash_32() has no arch implementation to test.");
  

-#endif -#ifdef HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64 -#if HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64 != 1

•   pr_info("hash_64() is arch-specific; not compared to generic.");
  

-#endif -#else

•   pr_info("hash_64() has no arch implementation to test.");
  

-#endif }

-static int __init -test_hash_init(void) -{

•   int ret;
  

•   ret = test_string_or();
  

•   if (ret < 0)
  

•           return ret;
  

•   ret = test_hash_or();
  

•   if (ret < 0)
  

•           return ret;
  

•   notice_skipped_tests();
  

+static struct kunit_case hash_test_cases[] __refdata = {

•   KUNIT_CASE(test_string_or),
  

•   KUNIT_CASE(test_hash_or),
  

•   {}
  

+};

•   return ret;
  

-} +static struct kunit_suite hash_test_suite = {

•   .name = "hash",
  

•   .test_cases = hash_test_cases,
  

+};

-static void __exit test_hash_exit(void) -{ -}

-module_init(test_hash_init); /* Does everything */ -module_exit(test_hash_exit); /* Does nothing */ +kunit_test_suite(hash_test_suite);

MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");

2.33.0

Again, thanks for your review!

Cheers, -- Isabella Basso