[PATCH] kunit: Fix a NULL vs IS_ERR() bug

[Dan Carpenter]

The kunit_device_register() function doesn't return NULL, it returns
error pointers. Change the KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_NULL() to check for
ERR_OR_NULL().

Fixes: d03c720e03bd ("kunit: Add APIs for managing devices")
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.ca...@linaro.org>
---
It's a pity that there isn't a KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_PTR() macro...

lib/kunit/kunit-test.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c b/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
index c4259d910356..f7980ef236a3 100644
--- a/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
+++ b/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
@@ -720,7 +720,7 @@ static void kunit_device_cleanup_test(struct kunit *test)
long action_was_run = 0;

test_device = kunit_device_register(test, "my_device");
- KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_NULL(test, test_device);
+ KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, test_device);

/* Add an action to verify cleanup. */
devm_add_action(test_device, test_dev_action, &action_was_run);
--
2.43.0

[Rae Moar]

On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 1:55 PM Dan Carpenter <dan.ca...@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> The kunit_device_register() function doesn't return NULL, it returns
> error pointers. Change the KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_NULL() to check for
> ERR_OR_NULL().
>
> Fixes: d03c720e03bd ("kunit: Add APIs for managing devices")
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.ca...@linaro.org>

This change looks good to me! Thanks!
-Rae

Reviewed-by: Rae Moar <rm...@google.com>

> ---
> It's a pity that there isn't a KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_PTR() macro...
>
> lib/kunit/kunit-test.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c b/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
> index c4259d910356..f7980ef236a3 100644
> --- a/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
> +++ b/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
> @@ -720,7 +720,7 @@ static void kunit_device_cleanup_test(struct kunit *test)
> long action_was_run = 0;
>
> test_device = kunit_device_register(test, "my_device");
> - KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_NULL(test, test_device);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, test_device);
>
> /* Add an action to verify cleanup. */
> devm_add_action(test_device, test_dev_action, &action_was_run);
> --
> 2.43.0
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "KUnit Development" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kunit-dev+...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kunit-dev/39b4278f-35d2-4071-a3aa-ec49705272af%40moroto.mountain.

[David Gow]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 at 02:55, Dan Carpenter <dan.ca...@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> The kunit_device_register() function doesn't return NULL, it returns
> error pointers. Change the KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_NULL() to check for
> ERR_OR_NULL().
>
> Fixes: d03c720e03bd ("kunit: Add APIs for managing devices")
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.ca...@linaro.org>
> ---

Nice catch, thanks!

Reviewed-by: David Gow <davi...@google.com>

> It's a pity that there isn't a KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_PTR() macro...

I think we'll add one, but I'm not yet totally convinced that it would
be better than using ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL() in cases like this,
where we're:
1. In a test; and,
2. using the pointer afterwards, expecting it to be valid
(dereferencing it and/or passing it to functions which will)

This is largely because it'd be nicer, if the pointer is NULL (due to
a bug), to get a more explicit assertion failure, rather than a crash.
It does make the test code less indicative of how the APIs are meant
to be used elsewhere, though, and annoys the static analysis, though.

Thoughts?

-- David

[Dan Carpenter]

On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 07:39:14AM +0800, David Gow wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 at 02:55, Dan Carpenter <dan.ca...@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > The kunit_device_register() function doesn't return NULL, it returns
> > error pointers. Change the KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_NULL() to check for
> > ERR_OR_NULL().
> >
> > Fixes: d03c720e03bd ("kunit: Add APIs for managing devices")
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.ca...@linaro.org>
> > ---
>
> Nice catch, thanks!
>
> Reviewed-by: David Gow <davi...@google.com>
>
> > It's a pity that there isn't a KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_PTR() macro...
>
> I think we'll add one, but I'm not yet totally convinced that it would
> be better than using ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL() in cases like this,
> where we're:
> 1. In a test; and,
> 2. using the pointer afterwards, expecting it to be valid
> (dereferencing it and/or passing it to functions which will)
>
> This is largely because it'd be nicer, if the pointer is NULL (due to
> a bug), to get a more explicit assertion failure, rather than a crash.
> It does make the test code less indicative of how the APIs are meant
> to be used elsewhere, though, and annoys the static analysis, though.
>
> Thoughts?

It doesn't annoy any static checkers because nothing looks for it.

Expecting that this test code might be buggier than normal code probably
isn't unreasonable so I guess that makes sense.

regards,
dan carpenter