diff options
Diffstat (limited to '')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/dev-tools/testing-overview.rst | 180 |
1 files changed, 180 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/testing-overview.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/testing-overview.rst new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..0aaf6ea53608 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/testing-overview.rst @@ -0,0 +1,180 @@ +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 + +==================== +Kernel Testing Guide +==================== + + +There are a number of different tools for testing the Linux kernel, so knowing +when to use each of them can be a challenge. This document provides a rough +overview of their differences, and how they fit together. + + +Writing and Running Tests +========================= + +The bulk of kernel tests are written using either the kselftest or KUnit +frameworks. These both provide infrastructure to help make running tests and +groups of tests easier, as well as providing helpers to aid in writing new +tests. + +If you're looking to verify the behaviour of the Kernel — particularly specific +parts of the kernel — then you'll want to use KUnit or kselftest. + + +The Difference Between KUnit and kselftest +------------------------------------------ + +KUnit (Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/index.rst) is an entirely in-kernel system +for "white box" testing: because test code is part of the kernel, it can access +internal structures and functions which aren't exposed to userspace. + +KUnit tests therefore are best written against small, self-contained parts +of the kernel, which can be tested in isolation. This aligns well with the +concept of 'unit' testing. + +For example, a KUnit test might test an individual kernel function (or even a +single codepath through a function, such as an error handling case), rather +than a feature as a whole. + +This also makes KUnit tests very fast to build and run, allowing them to be +run frequently as part of the development process. + +There is a KUnit test style guide which may give further pointers in +Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/style.rst + + +kselftest (Documentation/dev-tools/kselftest.rst), on the other hand, is +largely implemented in userspace, and tests are normal userspace scripts or +programs. + +This makes it easier to write more complicated tests, or tests which need to +manipulate the overall system state more (e.g., spawning processes, etc.). +However, it's not possible to call kernel functions directly from kselftest. +This means that only kernel functionality which is exposed to userspace somehow +(e.g. by a syscall, device, filesystem, etc.) can be tested with kselftest. To +work around this, some tests include a companion kernel module which exposes +more information or functionality. If a test runs mostly or entirely within the +kernel, however, KUnit may be the more appropriate tool. + +kselftest is therefore suited well to tests of whole features, as these will +expose an interface to userspace, which can be tested, but not implementation +details. This aligns well with 'system' or 'end-to-end' testing. + +For example, all new system calls should be accompanied by kselftest tests. + +Code Coverage Tools +=================== + +The Linux Kernel supports two different code coverage measurement tools. These +can be used to verify that a test is executing particular functions or lines +of code. This is useful for determining how much of the kernel is being tested, +and for finding corner-cases which are not covered by the appropriate test. + +Documentation/dev-tools/gcov.rst is GCC's coverage testing tool, which can be +used with the kernel to get global or per-module coverage. Unlike KCOV, it +does not record per-task coverage. Coverage data can be read from debugfs, +and interpreted using the usual gcov tooling. + +Documentation/dev-tools/kcov.rst is a feature which can be built in to the +kernel to allow capturing coverage on a per-task level. It's therefore useful +for fuzzing and other situations where information about code executed during, +for example, a single syscall is useful. + + +Dynamic Analysis Tools +====================== + +The kernel also supports a number of dynamic analysis tools, which attempt to +detect classes of issues when they occur in a running kernel. These typically +each look for a different class of bugs, such as invalid memory accesses, +concurrency issues such as data races, or other undefined behaviour like +integer overflows. + +Some of these tools are listed below: + +* kmemleak detects possible memory leaks. See + Documentation/dev-tools/kmemleak.rst +* KASAN detects invalid memory accesses such as out-of-bounds and + use-after-free errors. See Documentation/dev-tools/kasan.rst +* UBSAN detects behaviour that is undefined by the C standard, like integer + overflows. See Documentation/dev-tools/ubsan.rst +* KCSAN detects data races. See Documentation/dev-tools/kcsan.rst +* KFENCE is a low-overhead detector of memory issues, which is much faster than + KASAN and can be used in production. See Documentation/dev-tools/kfence.rst +* lockdep is a locking correctness validator. See + Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.rst +* There are several other pieces of debug instrumentation in the kernel, many + of which can be found in lib/Kconfig.debug + +These tools tend to test the kernel as a whole, and do not "pass" like +kselftest or KUnit tests. They can be combined with KUnit or kselftest by +running tests on a kernel with these tools enabled: you can then be sure +that none of these errors are occurring during the test. + +Some of these tools integrate with KUnit or kselftest and will +automatically fail tests if an issue is detected. + +Static Analysis Tools +===================== + +In addition to testing a running kernel, one can also analyze kernel source code +directly (**at compile time**) using **static analysis** tools. The tools +commonly used in the kernel allow one to inspect the whole source tree or just +specific files within it. They make it easier to detect and fix problems during +the development process. + +Sparse can help test the kernel by performing type-checking, lock checking, +value range checking, in addition to reporting various errors and warnings while +examining the code. See the Documentation/dev-tools/sparse.rst documentation +page for details on how to use it. + +Smatch extends Sparse and provides additional checks for programming logic +mistakes such as missing breaks in switch statements, unused return values on +error checking, forgetting to set an error code in the return of an error path, +etc. Smatch also has tests against more serious issues such as integer +overflows, null pointer dereferences, and memory leaks. See the project page at +http://smatch.sourceforge.net/. + +Coccinelle is another static analyzer at our disposal. Coccinelle is often used +to aid refactoring and collateral evolution of source code, but it can also help +to avoid certain bugs that occur in common code patterns. The types of tests +available include API tests, tests for correct usage of kernel iterators, checks +for the soundness of free operations, analysis of locking behavior, and further +tests known to help keep consistent kernel usage. See the +Documentation/dev-tools/coccinelle.rst documentation page for details. + +Beware, though, that static analysis tools suffer from **false positives**. +Errors and warns need to be evaluated carefully before attempting to fix them. + +When to use Sparse and Smatch +----------------------------- + +Sparse does type checking, such as verifying that annotated variables do not +cause endianness bugs, detecting places that use ``__user`` pointers improperly, +and analyzing the compatibility of symbol initializers. + +Smatch does flow analysis and, if allowed to build the function database, it +also does cross function analysis. Smatch tries to answer questions like where +is this buffer allocated? How big is it? Can this index be controlled by the +user? Is this variable larger than that variable? + +It's generally easier to write checks in Smatch than it is to write checks in +Sparse. Nevertheless, there are some overlaps between Sparse and Smatch checks. + +Strong points of Smatch and Coccinelle +-------------------------------------- + +Coccinelle is probably the easiest for writing checks. It works before the +pre-processor so it's easier to check for bugs in macros using Coccinelle. +Coccinelle also creates patches for you, which no other tool does. + +For example, with Coccinelle you can do a mass conversion from +``kmalloc(x * size, GFP_KERNEL)`` to ``kmalloc_array(x, size, GFP_KERNEL)``, and +that's really useful. If you just created a Smatch warning and try to push the +work of converting on to the maintainers they would be annoyed. You'd have to +argue about each warning if can really overflow or not. + +Coccinelle does no analysis of variable values, which is the strong point of +Smatch. On the other hand, Coccinelle allows you to do simple things in a simple +way. |