|  | .. 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. | 
|  |  |