The existing logic happens to work fine on UML, but is not correct when
running on other arches.

1. We didn't initialize `int err`, and kunit_filter_suites() doesn't
   explicitly set it to 0 on success. So we had false "failures".
   Note: it doesn't happen on UML, causing this to get overlooked.
2. If we error out, we do not call kunit_handle_shutdown().
   This makes kunit.py timeout when using a non-UML arch, since the QEMU
   process doesn't ever exit.

Fixes: a02353f49162 ("kunit: bail out of test filtering logic quicker if OOM")
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>

The `kunit_do_failed_assertion` function passes its
`struct kunit_assert` argument to `kunit_fail`. This one,
in turn, calls its `format` field passing the assert again
as a `const` pointer.

Therefore, the whole chain may be made `const`.

Signed-off-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>

When filtering what tests to run (suites and/or cases) via
kunit.filter_glob (e.g. kunit.py run <glob>), we allocate copies of
suites.

These allocations can fail, and we largely don't handle that.
Note: realistically, this probably doesn't matter much.
We're not allocating much memory and this happens early in boot, so if
we can't do that, then there's likely far bigger problems.

This patch makes us immediately bail out from the top-level function
(kunit_filter_suites) with -ENOMEM if any of the underlying kmalloc()
calls return NULL.

Implementation note: we used to return NULL pointers from some functions
to indicate either that all suites/tests were filtered out or there was
an error allocating the new array.

We'll log a short error in this case and not run any tests or print a
TAP header. From a kunit.py user's perspective, they'll get a message
about missing/invalid TAP output and have to dig into the test.log to
see it. Since hitting this error seems so unlikely, it's probably fine
to not invent a way to plumb this error message more visibly.

See also: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20220329103919.2376818-1-lv.ruyi@zte.com.cn/

Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Reported-by: Zeal Robot <zealci@zte.com.cn>
Reported-by: Lv Ruyi <lv.ruyi@zte.com.cn>
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>

KUnit's test-managed resources can be created in two ways:
- Using the kunit_add_resource() family of functions, which accept a
  struct kunit_resource pointer, typically allocated statically or on
  the stack during the test.
- Using the kunit_alloc_resource() family of functions, which allocate a
  struct kunit_resource using kzalloc() behind the scenes.

Both of these families of functions accept a 'free' function to be
called when the resource is finally disposed of.

At present, KUnit will kfree() the resource if this 'free' function is
specified, and will not if it is NULL. However, this can lead
kunit_alloc_resource() to leak memory (if no 'free' function is passed
in), or kunit_add_resource() to incorrectly kfree() memory which was
allocated by some other means (on the stack, as part of a larger
allocation, etc), if a 'free' function is provided.

Instead, always kfree() if the resource was allocated with
kunit_alloc_resource(), and never kfree() if it was passed into
kunit_add_resource() by the user. (If the user of kunit_add_resource()
wishes the resource be kfree()ed, they can call kfree() on the resource
from within the 'free' function.

This is implemented by adding a 'should_free' member to
struct kunit_resource and setting it appropriately. To facilitate this,
the various resource add/alloc functions have been refactored somewhat,
making them all call a __kunit_add_resource() helper after setting the
'should_free' member appropriately. In the process, all other functions
have been made static inline functions.

Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Tested-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>

Commit 6d2426b2f258 ("kunit: Support skipped tests") switched to using
`enum kunit_status` to track the result of running a test/suite since we
now have more than just pass/fail.

This callsite wasn't updated, silently converting to enum to a bool and
then back.

Fixes: 6d2426b2f258 ("kunit: Support skipped tests")
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>

KUnit has support for setup/cleanup logic for each test case in a suite.
But it lacks the ability to specify setup/cleanup for the entire suite
itself.

This can be used to do setup that is too expensive or cumbersome to do
for each test.
Or it can be used to do simpler things like log debug information after
the suite completes.
It's a fairly common feature, so the lack of it is noticeable.

Some examples in other frameworks and languages:
* https://docs.python.org/3/library/unittest.html#setupclass-and-teardownclass
* https://google.github.io/googletest/reference/testing.html#Test::SetUpTestSuite

Meta:
This is very similar to this patch here: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20210805043503.20252-3-bvanassche@acm.org/
The changes from that patch:
* pass in `struct kunit *` so users can do stuff like
  `kunit_info(suite, "debug message")`
* makes sure the init failure is bubbled up as a failure
* updates kunit-example-test.c to use a suite init
* Updates kunit/usage.rst to mention the new support
* some minor cosmetic things
  * use `suite_{init,exit}` instead of `{init/exit}_suite`
  * make suite init error message more consistent w/ test init
  * etc.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>

These names sound more general than they are.

The _end() function increments a `static int kunit_suite_counter`, so it
can only safely be called on suites, aka top-level subtests.
It would need to have a separate counter for each level of subtest to be
generic enough.

So rename it to make it clear it's only appropriate for suites.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>

The kunit_remove_resource() function is used to unlink a resource from
the list of resources in the test, making it no longer show up in
kunit_find_resource().

However, this could lead to a race condition if two threads called
kunit_remove_resource() on the same resource at the same time: the
resource would be removed from the list twice (causing a crash at the
second list_del()), and the refcount for the resource would be
decremented twice (instead of once, for the reference held by the
resource list).

Fix both problems, the first by using list_del_init(), and the second by
checking if the resource has already been removed using list_empty(),
and only decrementing its refcount if it has not.

Also add a KUnit test for the kunit_remove_resource() function which
tests this behaviour.

Reported-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>

We've split out the declarations from include/kunit/test.h into
resource.h.
This patch splits out the definitions as well for consistency.

A side effect of this is git blame won't properly track history by
default, users need to run
$ git blame -L ,1 -C13 lib/kunit/resource.c

Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>

Replace the NULL checks with the more specific and idiomatic NULL macros.

Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>