| .. 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. |
| |
| :doc:`gcov` 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. |
| |
| :doc:`kcov` 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. |
| |